Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP: Remove plat-omap/common.c

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> [121105 07:50]:
> On 2012-11-05 17:36, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> [121105 00:06]:
> >> On 2012-11-02 20:54, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>>> * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> [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.
> 
> I meant that the code that was moved in the patch "Remove
> plat-omap/common.c" is only compiled and ran on omap1, when the old
> omapfb has been enabled in the Kconfig. It's not used on omap2+.
> 
> old omapfb uses dma_alloc_*() to allocate memory, so if CMA works on
> omap1, I think this code in question can be removed, as done in my patch.

OK thanks for clarifying it.

Regards,

Tony