On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 1/21/19 4:12 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:10AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> >>> The main use case is for allowing clients to pass in
> >>> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in orde
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 1/21/19 4:18 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/21/19 2:20 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >>>
> On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 J
On 1/21/19 4:12 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:10AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
>>> The main use case is for allowing clients to pass in
>>> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in order to skip the default cache maintenance
>>> which happen
On 1/21/19 4:18 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/19 2:20 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>
On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 19
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 1/21/19 2:20 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:20:42PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> > I have left this to clients, but if they own the buffer they can have the
> > knowledge as to whether CPU access is needed in that use case (example for
> > post-processing).
>
> That
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:10AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> > The main use case is for allowing clients to pass in
> > DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in order to skip the default cache maintenance
> > which happens in dma_buf_map_attachment and dma_buf_un
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:20:42PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> I have left this to clients, but if they own the buffer they can have the
> knowledge as to whether CPU access is needed in that use case (example for
> post-processing).
That is an API design which the user is more likely to get wrong
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:10AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> The main use case is for allowing clients to pass in
> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in order to skip the default cache maintenance
> which happens in dma_buf_map_attachment and dma_buf_unmap_attachment. In
> ION the buffers aren't usually ac
On 1/21/19 2:20 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> And who is going to decide which ones to pass
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> And who is going to decide which ones to pass? And who documents
> which ones ar
On 1/21/19 1:44 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
And who is going to decide which ones to pass? And who documents
which ones are safe?
I'd much rather have explicit, well doc
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > And who is going to decide which ones to pass? And who documents
> > > which ones are safe?
> > >
> > > I'd much rather have explicit, well documented dma-buf flags that
> > > migh
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > And who is going to decide which ones to pass? And who documents
> > which ones are safe?
> >
> > I'd much rather have explicit, well documented dma-buf flags that
> > might get translated to the DMA API flags, which are not error
On 1/19/19 2:25 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:37:46AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
And who is going
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:37:46AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
> Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
> and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
> dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
And who is going to decide which ones to pass? And who
On 1/18/19 1:32 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 1/18/19 10:37 AM, Liam Mark wrote:
Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
---
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 1/18/19 10:37 AM, Liam Mark wrote:
> > Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
> > and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
> > dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
> > ---
> > include/li
On 1/18/19 10:37 AM, Liam Mark wrote:
Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
---
include/linux/dma-buf.h | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/
Add support for configuring dma mapping attributes when mapping
and unmapping memory through dma_buf_map_attachment and
dma_buf_unmap_attachment.
Signed-off-by: Liam Mark
---
include/linux/dma-buf.h | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dm
20 matches
Mail list logo
