From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dedekind1@gmail.com (Artem Bityutskiy) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:14:45 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 07/11] fsmc/nand: Provide contiguous buffers to dma In-Reply-To: References: <2b88c853b3691338fae037f569917fc300cd6032.1349778821.git.vipin.kumar@st.com> <507794B6.2000107@st.com> <1350307104.4115.23.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Message-ID: <1350371685.5769.45.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 21:51 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Brian Norris > wrote: > > > I would prefer not building a solution that hopes kmalloc() can get a > > large contiguous buffer (remember, eraseblock sizes come as large as > > 2MB these days). A real solution like CMA or scatter-gather seems like > > a better idea. > > +1 on that, and as I think I illustrated the MMC subsystem is using > the block layer helpers to form scatter-gather lists for it's requests. > I don't see why the MTD subsystem need to be very different? This is good idea, the problem is that it is a bit more work than hacking the driver, so most people prefer the latter. By removing all kmalloc()'s I basically wish to force people to go this way. What are the SC functions names you refer? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: