On Monday 28 February 2011 11:21:52 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2011 11:11:47 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 February 2011 13:12:42 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 25, 2011 18:22:51 Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > 2011/2/24 Edward Hervey <bilboed@gmail.com>:
> > > > >  What *needs* to be solved is an API for data allocation/passing at
> > > > > the kernel level which v4l2,omx,X,GL,vdpau,vaapi,... can use and
> > > > > that userspace (like GStreamer) can pass around, monitor and know
> > > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > I think the patches sent out from ST-Ericsson's Johan Mossberg to
> > > > linux-mm for "HWMEM" (hardware memory) deals exactly with buffer
> > > > passing, pinning of buffers and so on. The CMA (Contigous Memory
> > > > Allocator) has been slightly modified to fit hand-in-glove with
> > > > HWMEM, so CMA provides buffers, HWMEM pass them around.
> > > >
> > > > Johan, when you re-spin the HWMEM patchset, can you include
> > > > linaro-dev and linux-media in the CC?

> > >
> > > Yes, please. This sounds promising and we at linux-media would very
> > > much like to take a look at this. I hope that the CMA + HWMEM
> > > combination is exactly what we need.
> >
> > Once again let me restate what I've been telling for some time: CMA must
> > be *optional*. Not all hardware need contiguous memory. I'll have a look
> > at the next HWMEM version.

>
> Yes, it is optional when you look at specific hardware. On a kernel level
> however it is functionality that is required in order to support all the
> hardware. There is little point in solving one issue and not the other.

I agree. What I meant is that we need to make sure there's no HWMEM -> CMA
dependency.

st-ericsson mailing list
st-ericsson@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/st-ericsson