From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:04:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP: Remove plat-omap/common.c In-Reply-To: <20121102185453.GY15766@atomide.com> References: <20121101224703.2103.95474.stgit@muffinssi.local> <20121101224828.2103.82950.stgit@muffinssi.local> <50936A6E.3020202@ti.com> <5093891D.6070302@ti.com> <50938A69.9040908@ti.com> <20121102154901.GU15766@atomide.com> <20121102185453.GY15766@atomide.com> Message-ID: <50977319.9070902@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2012-11-02 20:54, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Santosh Shilimkar [121102 01:56]: >>> On Friday 02 November 2012 02:19 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>> On 2012-11-02 08:38, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Lets not move this in DMA code since the above is really related >>>>> to frame buffer. It reserves more DMA area for dma_alloc_coherent() >>>>> etc than default 2 MB. Infact, we should no longer need this with >>>>> CMA and memblock in place. >>>>> >>>>> Tomi, >>>>> Can we not get rid of the above memory reservation ? >>>> >>>> Yes, I think so. This one is only used for the old omapfb, i.e. omap1, >>>> and I have no means to test it out, though. But below is a patch to >>>> remove it. I also attached the patch, as it looks like thunderbird wants >>>> to reformat the pasted patch... I'll remove the >>>> CONFIG_FB_OMAP_CONSISTENT_DMA_SIZE from the omapfb driver's Kconfig file >>>> in my tree later. > > Hmm actually, is it safe to remove for omap1, or should we > still keep it around for omap1? Why wouldn't it be safe? Do you mean that CMA doesn't work on omap1, or...? I'm no expert on CMA, but as far as I can see with it's ARM generic stuff. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 897 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: