From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: subhasish@mistralsolutions.com (Subhasish Ghosh) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:40:42 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v4 08/11] tty: add pruss SUART driver In-Reply-To: References: <1303474109-6212-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <1303474109-6212-9-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <20110425212056.GA29313@kroah.com> <20110426124519.GC5977@suse.de> <35F38DB5B5C4408EA80AF0DB8A6FA178@subhasishg> <0B813DC0439B438BBB2B66A88B1A5F7F@subhasishg> Message-ID: <7C637C15A1AB48869F938B97BBDF22D8@subhasishg> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org >> >> Say, if the driver is loaded as a module. >> If I allocate the sram in the platform code, how to I >> free it when the driver is unloaded. > > This is what I said in my last e-mail. What is > the issue you see with this approach? > > | Thanks for the clarification. In this case, the driver > | should use platform callbacks to get/put fast fifo > | space. In case this callback is not populated by the > | platform or returns an error, the driver should fall > | back to allocating from DDR. > ok, so what you are suggesting is that I implement some callbacks (like .fifo_alloc, .fifo_dealloc) which can allocate memory using sram_alloc. My doubt is, if already such API's are there (by Russel) or you are suggesting to implement them.