[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] ARM926ejs: Add routines to invalidate D-Cache

[Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>]

Hi Reinhard,

On Monday 08 August 2011 03:55 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> Hi Aneesh,
>> On Monday 08 August 2011 03:29 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
>>> Dear Albert, Aneesh, Hong,
>>>
>>> There seem to be functions of type
>>>
>>> xxx(start, end) and xxx(start, size).
>>>
>>> Can't it be somehow decided to use only one variant
>>> in all cases (flush, invalidate)?
>>
>> The u-boot standard seems to be xxx(start, end) where the operation
>> will be done on the range [start, end). This is what I figured out by
>> looking at the prototypes and existing implementations when I did the
>> armv7 work and I have stuck to this standard.
>>
>> Hong also seems to be following the same standard.
>>
>> If there is no objection, I shall add this definition to the README I
>> am adding.
>
> Maybe its arch specific, I just saw this in another thread, thats why I asked:
>
>
> +++ b/arch/mips/cpu/mips32/cpu.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,11 @@ int do_reset(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
>
>   void flush_cache(ulong start_addr, ulong size)

I think the confusion about flush_cache() is because in
include/common.h the prototype for flush_cache() doesn't have names for
the paramaeters. It's like this:

void	flush_cache   (unsigned long, unsigned long);

However, the invalidate and flush range functions are clearly defined:

void	flush_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop);
void	invalidate_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop);

I don't know what to do about flush_cache() now that it seems to have
conflicting implementations.

best regards,
Aneesh