From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:45:11 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM926ejs: Add routines to invalidate D-Cache
In-Reply-To: <201108092155.24250.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
References: <1312773617-10859-1-git-send-email-hong.xu@atmel.com>
	<201108081934.50668.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<4E409415.1030005@atmel.com>
	<201108092155.24250.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E41E2A7.8080302@atmel.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

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.

BR,
Eric