From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:32:51 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 7/8] mtd/nand/ubi: assortment of alignment
	fixes
In-Reply-To: <1436428076.2953.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <cover.1436175196.git.marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
 <fb7ecceadecacd4498ca27ac2481252bffc4a36e.1436175196.git.marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
 <1436397933.2658.88.camel@freescale.com>
 <1436428076.2953.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1436473971.2658.130.camel@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 09:47 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> Hi Scott
> 
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 18:25 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > 
> > As per discussion on v1, this isn't enough to guarantee that the stop 
> > address 
> > will be aligned.  There needs to be a wrapper around memalign() that 
> > cache-
> > aligns the size as well.
> > 
> > -Scott
> 
> Sorry, that isn't quite clear to me yet. You're saying I would need to
> handle that in this patch?
> 
> Looking through the sources I actually found only one single usage of
> memalign() which explicitly takes care of this the way you propose:
> 
> drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:  ptr = memalign(cacheline_size, ALIGN(size,
> cacheline_size));
> 
> I'm just wondering about the 107 other places in U-Boot where memalign()
> is already used the way I do in this patch.

I suppose there are enough existing ones that it won't hurt to add more -- 
it's still an improvement over the current situation -- but it'd be good to 
fix it properly before it gets forgotten.

> Wouldn't there need to be an infrastructure solution done to e.g.
> memalign() itself?

No, just a wrapper:

static inline void *malloc_cache_aligned(size_t size)
{
        return memalign(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, ALIGN(size, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
}