From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 16:42:14 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] env_mmc: fix buffer allocation for armv7 In-Reply-To: <20131005195728.AE316380A3C@gemini.denx.de> References: <1380894483-6754-1-git-send-email-list-09_u-boot@tqsc.de> <20131004170203.GL15917@bill-the-cat> <20131005195728.AE316380A3C@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20131006204214.GO15917@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:57:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > In message <20131004170203.GL15917@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > I really don't like this. We're now allocating for example 256KiB on > > the stack, rather than malloc. I posted a patch recently to convert the > > non-redundant case to malloc instead for this reason. I believe the > > answer is we need to be using memalign here, like > > common/bouncebuf.c::bounce_buffer_start does. Can you do this? If not, > > can you test a patch? Thanks. > > What exactly don't you like in using the stack for temporary data > buffers? That's what it has been invented for. Using malloc() is > only useful when the allocated buffers neet to be kept across file > scope, which appears not to be the case here. > > For file scope buffers, usign the satck is the most efficient and > preferred approach - it's fast and results in minimal (virtually no) > code. > > Why do you hesitate to use the stack? Mainly to allow us to work in restricted stack areas like SPL where we simply may not have that much space available. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: