From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:13:22 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] MPC8xxx: Define cache ops for USB
In-Reply-To: <OF23BF8EC1.5CB51E86-ONC1257A09.00500152-C1257A09.00501536@transmode.se>
References: <1337948672-7202-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de>
	<4FBF973B.8090904@gmail.com>
	<OF23BF8EC1.5CB51E86-ONC1257A09.00500152-C1257A09.00501536@transmode.se>
Message-ID: <201205251813.23208.marex@denx.de>
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

Dear Joakim Tjernlund,

> > Hello Marek,
> > 
> > On 5/25/2012 7:44 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > This patch conditionally defines flush_dcache_range() and
> > > invalidate_dcache_range() on MPC8xxx, to avoid EHCI complaining,
> > 
> > > resulting in the following output:
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > +
> > > +void invalidate_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void flush_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > 
> > Don't mind if this is a stupid question.
> > Can't this be placed in some common header?
> > Just to avoid code duplication!
> 
> And why are they just dummy functions? There are cache flush instructions
> for ppc

Doesn't the PPC have it's own internal snooping?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut