Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:01:28PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Thanks for your input. I think this is mostly orthogonal to dma_buf, and really a way to adapt TTM to be DMA-api aware. That's currently done within the TTM backends. CMA was mearly included as an example that might not be relevant.
I haven't followed dma_buf that closely lately, but if it's growing from being just a way to share buffer objects between devices to something providing also low-level allocators with fragmentation prevention, there's definitely an overlap. However, on the dma_buf meeting in Budapest there seemed to be little or no interest in robust buffer allocation / fragmentation prevention although I remember bringing it up to the point where I felt annoying :).
Well, I've shot at you quite a bit too, and I still think it's too much for the first few iterations. But I also think we will need a cleverer dma subsystem sooner or later (even if it's just around dma_buf) so that's why I've dragged your rfc out of the drm corner ;-)
Cheers, Daniel