From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:22:02 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early_initcall
In-Reply-To: <7276921204ba82a2065faa61548f1699.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
References: <4CF94DDD.8000409@codeaurora.org>
	<20101203203653.GB10245@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<4CFDD297.4020600@codeaurora.org>
	<15d23d63900e4545a40555961c49c421.squirrel@codeaurora.org>
	<20101209103835.GA31465@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<4D017B45.4000805@codeaurora.org>
	<AANLkTi=PnnT8rVKMxK0tVTdKnKdcKf71fsX2o594Qx3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D045692.4050607@codeaurora.org>
	<AANLkTimwqC6DqN8ft10EyRbPh9XvibN1fA-Cug4OdS5m@mail.gmail.com>
	<8c67e174d807416f0c6c190cc72d3f5a.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
	<20101217094818.GA9937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<99eb693af85e07b01d81d45f1bc77f64.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
	<AANLkTinsgqLDe3=KX59n1UAp9v0ErXQzxj+A+qQ8TRj_@mail.gmail.com>
	<7276921204ba82a2065faa61548f1699.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <4D0FE51A.4050506@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/17/10 15:14, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> Russell,
>>>
>>> I agree with your point about using an API for purpose and not property.
>>> But I read Catalin's proposal as, let's treat secure domain as another
>>> DMA
>>> "device". If we make a conscious agreement to do that, then using the
>>> DMA
>>> API for secure domain would be "using it for its purpose" and we will
>>> make
>>> an effort to not break it with future updates. Of course, if we don't
>>> agree on that proposal, then we can't use the DMA API for secure domain
>>> stuff.
>>
>> If there is no better proposal, I'm for such extension to the DMA API.
>>  From the kernel perspecitve, the secure side is just another entity
>> that accesses the RAM directly. It's not a physically separate device
>> indeed but from a direct memory access perspective it can be treated
>> as any other device.
>>
>> In the DMA API we can fall back to the non-coherent ops when a NULL
>> struct device is passed. I assume in your code you already pass a NULL
>> device to dma_alloc_coherent().
>
> Russell,
>
> Would the extension of the DMA API as described above be acceptable to
> you? If not, can you please suggest an alternative that's acceptable to
> you?

Ping...

-Saravana

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.