On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 17:06:41 Anton Staaf wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 16:27:26 Anton Staaf wrote: > >> So then, to guide our efforts, what is a more suitable solution? > >> Would you prefer we stick with the existing path of calling memalign > >> and passing it the cache size by directly calling > >> get_dcache_line_size? Or would you prefer something more like a > >> dma_buffer_malloc function that allocates on the heap a cache line > >> size aligned buffer and returns it? > > > > memalign() is simply a malloc() with offset fudging, so > > dma_buffer_malloc() is the way to go imo. anything that involves end > > code having to figure out how to align things itself is asking for pain. > > Indeed, I had temporarily forgotten about memalign it seems. :/ > > Does it make more sense to put such a function into Lukasz's patch, or > a separate patch?
Lukasz' havent been merged yet, so imo it makes more sense to put the sane framework in place and then fix the relevant code on top of that -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
