+>> +struct cma *__init cma_create(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
+ unsigned int order_per_bit, const char *name)
+{
+ struct cma *cma;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = cma_check_memory(base, size);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
+
+ cma = kzalloc(sizeof(*cma), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!cma)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
+ cma_init_area(cma, name, size, order_per_bit);
+ cma->ranges[0].base_pfn = PFN_DOWN(base);
+ cma->ranges[0].early_pfn = PFN_DOWN(base);
+ cma->ranges[0].count = cma->count;
+ cma->nranges = 1;
+
+ cma_activate_area(cma);
+
+ return cma;
+}
+
+void cma_free(struct cma *cma)
+{
+ kfree(cma);
+}
--
2.50.0
I agree that supporting dynamic CMA areas would be good. However, by
doing it like this, these CMA areas are invisible to the rest of the
system. E.g. cma_for_each_area() does not know about them. It seems a
bit inconsistent that there will now be some areas that are globally
known, and some that are not.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that.
What is the big problem we are trying to solve here? Why do they have to
be dynamic, why do they even have to support freeing?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
