On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Anton Staaf,
>
> In message
> <CAF6FioXeFQP2a0VaZOVOTmxPvJxF4=kamS18=2=p6tfnefw...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>>
>> > what about adding a new func like:
>> > #define dma_buffer_alloca(size)
>>
>> I generally avoid large allocations on the stack, they can confuse
>> virtual stack management and blow out small embedded stacks. But
>> neither of these are really a problem for most U-Boot targets. Are
>> you thinking something like:
>>
>> #define dma_buffer_alloca(size) alloca(size + get_dcache_line_size() -
>> 1) & ~(get_dcache_line_size() - 1);
>
> I don't think I will accept any alloca() based code into mainline.
Ahh, that must have been my reason for not using it in the first
place, a premonition. :)
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?
Hmm, that will require a bit of thought because we need to recover the
original pointer returned by malloc to cleanly free the buffer later.
Thanks,
Anton
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
> "There are three principal ways to lose money: wine, women, and en-
> gineers. While the first two are more pleasant, the third is by far
> the more certain." -- Baron Rothschild, ca. 1800
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
