From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:14:49 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] 86xx: Unlock l1 cache unconditionally
In-Reply-To: <20090710230751.C39B7832E416@gemini.denx.de>
References: <cover.1243005212.git.ptyser@xes-inc.com>
	<05de848db92da7ff85fa3c1bb285247aba99ec05.1243005212.git.ptyser@xes-inc.com>
	<4B5A7126-FCDF-4EB0-9181-FB1BE571C715@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20090710203723.34C41832E416@gemini.denx.de>
	<1247259105.32367.22.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090710230751.C39B7832E416@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <1247267689.32367.169.camel@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 01:07 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Peter Tyser,
> 
> In message <1247259105.32367.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> >
> > The only platforms the define unlock_ram_in_cache() are 83xx, 85xx,
> > 86xx, and 74xx_7xx.
> > 
> > It looks like the most of them had "issues" in their implementation that
> > could explain why there weren't enabled:
> > 83xx - ade50c7fa1b16ef98be17e9c3ae286aecf4f5605,
> > 6eb2a44e27919fdc601e0c05404b298a7602c0e3
> > 
> > 86xx - 392438406041415fe64ab8748ec5ab5ad01d1cf7
> > 
> > 74xx - d685b74c64a38849f1a129b3ab846fbf67dd937e
> > 
> > 85xx - this one works
> > 
> > My best guess was all the non-85xx implementations had bugs or other
> > issues that caused U-Boot to become unstable after unlocking the cache.
> > Perhaps those bugs are fixed now, but I only have 86xx hardware to test
> > on.  I've been running a few 86xx boards with the cache unlocked with no
> > noticeable problems.
> 
> Thanks for the analysis. So let's go ahead and do this globally.

I'll submit a patch.  Hopefully someone with an 83xx and 74xx/7xx board
can give it a shot before you apply it.

Best,
Peter