Am Montag, den 16.01.2012, 09:14 +0100 schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > Dear Stephan Linz,
Hi Wolfgang, you are right in all points. I'll go into the next round and handle all new request. br, Stephan > > In message <1326652166.18981.213.camel@keto> you wrote: > > > > > come code already declares PktBuf ... can't you use that ? > > > > Hm, what do you mean exactly here? > > > > These are the two DMA transfer buffers. I have no idea if there are > > buffers in the upper layer (NET) and how I can use it for DMA transfers. > > It's a bad thing not to look at common code, but thnings like that > happen too easily. > > However, now that this has been pointed out, you cannot simply ignore > such a request. > > > Therfore I create my own rx/tx buffers and copy data. That reduce the > > performance a little bit, but it's OK. Furthermore I have to use DMA > > safe buffers here (no cache, 32 byte alignment). > > I could imagine this to be a pretty common requirement. > > > > this looks like a struct that should get allocated on the fly based on > > > arguments given to the driver's registration func > > > > OK, it wast a little bit RAM. We can optimize the code later. I want to > > see more testing results on differnet Microblaze and PPC platforms. > > we can fix this now, right? > > > > the memory is already zero-ed by the call to calloc, so this for loop is > > > useless (and if it wasn't, you'd still use memset()) > > > > Sure, we can remove this part in one of the next code optimization. > > No. Please fix this now, and then add a cleaned up driver. This is > what the peer review process is all about. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
