On Monday, July 06, 2015 at 11:25:35 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 15:44 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Thursday, July 02, 2015 at 11:35:19 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 07:53 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 02, 2015 at 01:04:52 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: > > > > > From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> > > > > > > > > > > Various U-Boot adoptions/extensions to MTD/NAND/UBI did not take > > > > > buffer > > > > > alignment into account which led to failures of the following form: > > > > > > > > > > ERROR: v7_dcache_inval_range - start address is not aligned - > > > > > 0x1f7f0108 ERROR: v7_dcache_inval_range - stop address is not > > > > > aligned - 0x1f7f1108 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> > > > > > > > > What about using ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER() and friends instead ? See > > > > include/common.h for their definition, this is what those functions > > > > are exactly for. > > > > > > ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER() is for statically allocating an aligned > > > buffer. > > > > You're confusing this with DEFINE_ALIGN_BUFFER, no ? > > OK, not "statically", but on the stack. It is not appropriate to turn > dynamic allocations into stack allocations without considering how large > the allocation can be. It'd also be more intrusive a change than > necessary, even if the sizes were small enough.
Fine. > > > Dynamically allocating an aligned buffer is exactly what memalign() is > > > for. > > > > Isn't memalign()ed memory aligned only to the start address, while the > > end address (and thus the length) is not aligned ? > > The end address is aligned if the size passed to memalign is aligned. > Maybe add a wrapper that calls memalign() with the size rounded up to > ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN? I agree. > > This is what memalign(3) has > > > > to say: > > > > " > > The function posix_memalign() allocates size bytes and places the > > address of the allocated memory in *memptr. The address of the > > allo‐ cated memory will be a multiple of alignment, which must > > be a power of two and a multiple of sizeof(void *). If size is 0, > > then the value placed in *memptr is either NULL, or a unique pointer > > value that can later be successfully passed to free(3). > > > > The obsolete function memalign() allocates size bytes and returns a > > pointer to the allocated memory. The memory address will be a mul‐ > > tiple of alignment, which must be a power of two. > > " > > posix_memalign() does not exist in U-Boot, and it's not clear to me why > memalign() should be considered obsolete. Is the difference just the > ability to return -EINVAL? The args are also totally different. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
