From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP: Remove plat-omap/common.c Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:36:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20121105153632.GH4953@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> <50977319.9070902@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-04-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.74]:39199 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932618Ab2KEPgg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:36:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50977319.9070902@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Santosh Shilimkar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Tomi Valkeinen [121105 00:06]: > 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. Just wondering after your comment "This one is only used for the old omapfb, i.e. omap1". But sounds like it should no longer be needed there either if I parse that right. Regards, Tony