Yet another memory provider: can linaro organize a meeting?
m.szyprowski at samsung.com
Thu Mar 10 14:14:11 UTC 2011
On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:14 AM Hans Verkuil wrote:
> We had a discussion yesterday regarding ways in which linaro can assist
> V4L2 development. One topic was that of sorting out memory providers like
> GEM and HWMEM.
> Today I learned of yet another one: UMP from ARM.
I really wonder what's the opinion of ARM Linux maintainer on this memory
allocator. Russell - could you comment on it? Is this a preferred memory
provider/allocator on ARM Linux platform? What's about still to-be-resolved
issues with mapping memory regions for DMA transfers and different cache
settings for each mapping?
> This is getting out of hand. I think that organizing a meeting to solve this
> mess should be on the top of the list. Companies keep on solving the same
> problem time and again and since none of it enters the mainline kernel any
> driver using it is also impossible to upstream.
> All these memory-related modules have the same purpose: make it possible to
> allocate/reserve large amounts of memory and share it between different
> subsystems (primarily framebuffer, GPU and V4L).
> It really shouldn't be that hard to get everyone involved together and settle
> on a single solution (either based on an existing proposal or create a 'the
> best of' vendor-neutral solution).
> I am currently aware of the following solutions floating around the net
> that all solve different parts of the problem:
> In the kernel: GEM and TTM.
> Out-of-tree: HWMEM, UMP, CMA, VCM, CMEM, PMEM.
> I'm sure that last list is incomplete.
Samsung Poland R&D Center
More information about the linaro-dev