From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:46:26 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM926ejs: Add routines to invalidate D-Cache
In-Reply-To: <4E41E2A7.8080302@atmel.com>
References: <1312773617-10859-1-git-send-email-hong.xu@atmel.com>
	<201108092155.24250.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<4E41E2A7.8080302@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <201108100446.27178.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
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 Wednesday, August 10, 2011 03:45:11 AM Hong Xu wrote:
> Hi Marek Vasut,
> 
> On 08/10/2011 03:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 09, 2011 03:57:41 AM Hong Xu wrote:
> >> Hi Marek Vasut,
> 
> >> On 08/09/2011 01:34 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >>>>      printf("WARNING: %s - start address %x is not aligned\n"
> >>>>      
> >>>>        __FUNCTION__, start);
> >>> 
> >>> __func__ is prefered in linux kernel :-)
> >> 
> >> __func__ is C99 standard. __FUNCTION__ appears more in U-Boot. ;-)
> > 
> > This doesn't mean it's correct ;-) "majority proof" isn't a proof really.
> > 
> >> GCC manual says some older GCC only recognize __FUNCTION__ .
> >> If we rely on GCC, it looks __FUNCTION__ will reduce troubles.
> > 
> > Do we support such ancient versions of GCC anyway ? Just to be clear, I'm
> > fine with either way, just my 2.7183 cents ;-)
> 
> Agree. Just after last reply, I reconsidered the situation in the
> tearoom. __func__ looks better. ;-)  I'll resend the patch soon, thanks.

Thanks, I'm very much looking forward to this patch in mainline.
> 
> BR,
> Eric