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
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48