From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from elvis.franken.de ([IPv6:::ffff:193.175.24.41]:9147 "EHLO elvis.franken.de") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:04 +0100 Received: from uucp (helo=solo.franken.de) by elvis.franken.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1DmzEa-0007tF-03; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:25:32 +0200 Received: by solo.franken.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B10C827C45; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:09:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:09:10 +0200 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Ralf Baechle , Florian Lohoff , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [patch] blast_scache nop for sc cpus without scache Message-ID: <20050627190910.GA13292@alpha.franken.de> References: <20050625131938.GA7669@paradigm.rfc822.org> <20050625160316.GP6953@linux-mips.org> <20050625175048.GA25276@alpha.franken.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: tsbogend@alpha.franken.de (Thomas Bogendoerfer) 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: 8211 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: tsbogend@alpha.franken.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:45:39PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Are you sure CONF_SC isn't set? I've checked that after we saw a crash in __flush_cache_all(). > That would be weird, it's one of the boot-mode settings so it would be > hard to get it wrong. What's printed upon bootstrap about caches? I don't have the console working yet, we just put enough prom_printf()s to work out, what was going wron. > (but it may break elsewhere). Have I heard: "serious brain damage" from > you? Well, I couldn't agree more... well, I haven't digged deep enough, to have a good opion on the whole issue. I'm also not sure, whether adding the blast_scache_nop() stuff is the way to go. I'd probably throw out the switch case over CPU types and use a single test before calling r4k_blast_scache(). Hmm, the probably cheapest version would be: if (r4k_blast_scache) r4k_blast_scache(); Problem solved. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]