From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:07:00 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 03/10] armv7: cache maintenance operations
 for armv7
In-Reply-To: <20110517093102.1E4B01491B09@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1299589658-30896-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<1305202276-27784-4-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<20110515185101.7900E1491B06@gemini.denx.de>
	<4DD23D3A.4010001@ti.com>
	<20110517093102.1E4B01491B09@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4DD241BC.4020805@ti.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 Tuesday 17 May 2011 03:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4DD23D3A.4010001@ti.com>  you wrote:
>>
>>> How much of this is actually needed in the context of U-Boot?
>>
>> Please see above. As far as I know OMAP doesn't do DMA in U-Boot.
>
> Devices like USB oth Ethernet don't use DMA for data transfers?
>
>>> Please do not add dead code.  I consider it misleading to have
>>> functions which promise to perform something, and actually do nothing.
>>
>> These are empty only in the else part of an #ifdef. When cache support
>> is compiled out these need to be empty.
>
> When cache support is compiled out there should be no callers to these
> functions, so maybe they can disappear?

No, there may be callers in drivers. It will be ugly to keep all the
calls in various drivers under #ifdef, right? Is it not better to have
some empty functions and not worrying about the calls in various
places.

best regards,
Aneesh