[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] i.MX: fsl_esdhc: allow use with cache enabled.

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

Thanks Andy,

On 05/08/2012 03:59 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
>> @@ -190,6 +190,10 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct mmc *mmc, struct mmc_data *data)
>>                 esdhc_clrsetbits32(&regs->wml, WML_RD_WML_MASK, wml_value);
>>                 esdhc_write32(&regs->dsaddr, (u32)data->dest);
>>         } else {
>> +               flush_dcache_range((ulong)data->src,
>> +                                  (ulong)data->src+data->blocks
>> +                                        *data->blocksize);
>> +
>
>
> This still won't work. I don't believe this is implemented at all on
> the FSL PowerPC parts that use this controller.
>
> At the very least, it needs to be protected by an ifdef.
>

It seems more generally useful to implement a PowerPC cache layer
than to instrument each driver that supports cache.

Do you know how many other peripherals are shared between ARM and PPC
that might be broken by cache operations?

>>                 if (wml_value>  WML_WR_WML_MAX)
>>                         wml_value = WML_WR_WML_MAX_VAL;
>>                 if ((esdhc_read32(&regs->prsstat)&  PRSSTAT_WPSPL) == 0) {
>> @@ -249,7 +253,15 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct mmc *mmc, struct mmc_data *data)
>>         return 0;
>>   }
>>
>> -
>> +static void check_and_invalidate_dcache_range
>> +       (struct mmc_cmd *cmd,
>> +        struct mmc_data *data) {
>
>
> This is non-standard formatting in U-Boot.
>

Ok. I can address that in a V3 once I know the direction.

Regards,


Eric