From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel@ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:18:06 +0100
Subject: [RFC] Future TTM DMA direction
In-Reply-To: <4F0AC908.90708@vmware.com>
References: <4F0AB558.3050902@vmware.com>
 <20120109101105.GC3723@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <4F0AC908.90708@vmware.com>
Message-ID: <20120110091806.GC3979@phenom.ffwll.local>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:01:28PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Thanks for your input. I think this is mostly orthogonal to dma_buf, and
> really a way to adapt TTM to be DMA-api aware. That's currently done
> within the TTM backends. CMA was mearly included as an example that
> might not be relevant.
> 
> I haven't followed dma_buf that closely lately, but if it's growing
> from being just
> a way to share buffer objects between devices to something providing
> also low-level
> allocators with fragmentation prevention, there's definitely an overlap.
> However, on the dma_buf meeting in Budapest there seemed to be
> little or no interest
> in robust buffer allocation / fragmentation prevention although I
> remember bringing
> it up to the point where I felt annoying :).

Well, I've shot at you quite a bit too, and I still think it's too much
for the first few iterations. But I also think we will need a cleverer
dma subsystem sooner or later (even if it's just around dma_buf) so that's
why I've dragged your rfc out of the drm corner ;-)

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48