From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:32:02 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc:dcache: Cache line size aligned internal MMC buffers In-Reply-To: References: <1313745913-28672-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <201108231637.05845.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <201108231732.04955.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 17:06:41 Anton Staaf wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 16:27:26 Anton Staaf wrote: > >> So then, to guide our efforts, what is a more suitable solution? > >> Would you prefer we stick with the existing path of calling memalign > >> and passing it the cache size by directly calling > >> get_dcache_line_size? Or would you prefer something more like a > >> dma_buffer_malloc function that allocates on the heap a cache line > >> size aligned buffer and returns it? > > > > memalign() is simply a malloc() with offset fudging, so > > dma_buffer_malloc() is the way to go imo. anything that involves end > > code having to figure out how to align things itself is asking for pain. > > Indeed, I had temporarily forgotten about memalign it seems. :/ > > Does it make more sense to put such a function into Lukasz's patch, or > a separate patch? Lukasz' havent been merged yet, so imo it makes more sense to put the sane framework in place and then fix the relevant code on top of that -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20110823/cc9f5a84/attachment.pgp