From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:54 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Dan Malek Cc: Armin , Tom Rini , Armin Kuster , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: Another OCP enet patch Message-ID: <20020529034854.GC16537@zax> References: <20020527040330.GH16537@zax> <20020527162323.GB32718@opus.bloom.county> <20020528005728.GO16537@zax> <20020528012516.GE1295@opus.bloom.county> <3CF32B87.4010908@pacbell.net> <20020528065027.GT16537@zax> <3CF3612B.8020102@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3CF3612B.8020102@embeddededge.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 06:51:23AM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > David Gibson wrote: > > >... In some ways, since we're PPC specific anyway, I think it would > >make as much sense as anything just to directly call > >dcache_flush_range() and so forth, rather than consistent_sync() or > >dma_cache_*(). > > Yes, that's true. These consistent_* functions were added when we > started using non-PCI drivers that are common across multiple platforms. > It seems none of the platforms had common names for data cache management > functions, so people started using the consistent_sync() in it's place. > It also made sense because they were using the other consistent_* functions > as well. No one probably noticed, but at the same time we also changed > the cache management function names to be similar to other architectures > as well. Well, actually, dma_cache_wback() and friends still appear to be more widely used than consistent_sync(). AFAICT only PPC and ARM use consistent_sync(). -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. -- H.L. Mencken http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/