From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:43:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cm19173.red.mundo-r.com ([IPv6:::ffff:213.60.19.173]:34535 "EHLO demo.mitica") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:43:17 +0000 Received: by demo.mitica (Postfix, from userid 501) id 06EA5D657; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:51:20 +0100 (CET) To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [patch] R4k cache code synchronization References: X-Url: http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~quintela From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: Date: 10 Jan 2003 14:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.92 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 1125 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: quintela@mandrakesoft.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips >>>>> "maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki writes: maciej> On 10 Jan 2003, Juan Quintela wrote: >> The only thing that could be controversial is the _l1() thing, and as >> current thing is broken, I vote for insclusion. >> maciej> diff -up --recursive --new-file linux-mips-2.4.20-pre6-20030107.macro/arch/mips64/mm/c-r4k.c linux-mips-2.4.20-pre6-20030107/arch/mips64/mm/c-r4k.c maciej> --- linux-mips-2.4.20-pre6-20030107.macro/arch/mips64/mm/c-r4k.c 2002-12-20 03:56:52.000000000 +0000 maciej> +++ linux-mips-2.4.20-pre6-20030107/arch/mips64/mm/c-r4k.c 2003-01-09 23:21:39.000000000 +0000 >> @@ -979,7 +980,7 @@ static void r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_sc(u >> unsigned long end, a; >> >> if (size >= scache_size) { >> - flush_cache_l1(); >> + flush_cache_all(); >> return; >> } >> >> This one is fixing a bug, we are talking about a chip with Secondary >> cache and don't touch the secondary cache at all :( maciej> That bug is inactive -- both function pointers are defined to the same maciej> value as surprisinly enough "l1" means "both caches" for the R4k. Anyway, maciej> I for removing flush_cache_l1() altogether in the next step. Yep, you are right, only 2 weeks since I looked at that file and already forgot it. Ralf, current code (as Maciej tolds), just have _l1 & _l2 variants, but at least in that file, they are defined to be the same :( I also vote to unify the mips & mips64 versions of that file, they are the same :( Maciej, in the other hand, you didn't coment in the other part, that we writeback & invalidate when we are asked only to invalidate? Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy