From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755426Ab2AJJQJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:16:09 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:62352 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752684Ab2AJJQE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:16:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:18:06 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: Thomas Hellstrom Cc: "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , James Simmons , Jerome Glisse , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Future TTM DMA direction Message-ID: <20120110091806.GC3979@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Hellstrom , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , James Simmons , Jerome Glisse , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org References: <4F0AB558.3050902@vmware.com> <20120109101105.GC3723@phenom.ffwll.local> <4F0AC908.90708@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F0AC908.90708@vmware.com> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 3.2.0-rc6+ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:01:28PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > Thanks for your input. I think this is mostly orthogonal to dma_buf, and > really a way to adapt TTM to be DMA-api aware. That's currently done > within the TTM backends. CMA was mearly included as an example that > might not be relevant. > > I haven't followed dma_buf that closely lately, but if it's growing > from being just > a way to share buffer objects between devices to something providing > also low-level > allocators with fragmentation prevention, there's definitely an overlap. > However, on the dma_buf meeting in Budapest there seemed to be > little or no interest > in robust buffer allocation / fragmentation prevention although I > remember bringing > it up to the point where I felt annoying :). Well, I've shot at you quite a bit too, and I still think it's too much for the first few iterations. But I also think we will need a cleverer dma subsystem sooner or later (even if it's just around dma_buf) so that's why I've dragged your rfc out of the drm corner ;-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48