On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 17:09:37 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Mike Frysinger 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. > > I would like to avoid using any malloc code here. We have to keep in > mind that such code changes will spread, and will be copied into > driver code, file systems, etc. which might be used (and even > required, for example for NAND or SDCard booting systems) before > relocation - but malloc becomes available only after relocation. > > Why cannot we define a macro that declares a (sufficiently sized) > buffer on the stack and provides and a pointer to a (correctly > aligned) address in this buffer?
isnt that what i already posted and you NAK-ed ? :) DMA_DECLARE_BUFFER(...) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
