[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: cache: add an empty stub function for invalidate/flush dcache

[Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com>]

On 6/10/2015 5:58 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:49:54 AM, Josh Wu wrote:
>> On 6/9/2015 9:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:54:14AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote:
>>>> Hi, Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 6/8/2015 9:20 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:26:29AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, June 08, 2015 at 04:05:04 AM, Josh Wu wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Marek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/5/2015 9:18 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 05, 2015 at 09:47:30 AM, Josh Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since some driver like ohci, lcd used dcache functions. But some
>>>>>>>>> ARM cpu don't implement the
>>>>>>>>> invalidate_dcache_range()/flush_dcache_range() functions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To avoid compiling errors this patch adds an weak empty stub
>>>>>>>>> function for all ARM cpu.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And each cpu can implement its own implementation. If not
>>>>>>>>> implemented by default it will use an empty function.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changes in v2: new added
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     arch/arm/lib/cache.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>> So, why exactly can't this be entirely common code , but a
>>>>>>>> CPU-specific code ? :)
>>>>>>> Do you mean to make those empty functions as common code for all arch
>>>>>>> cpu to use?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems there is no place to put common code for all arch cpu.
>>>>>> Isn't that what the common/ directory is for ? ;-)
>>>>> No, this is making something common for the sake of making it common
>>>>> rather than good architecutre of the code I think.  We aren't going to
>>>>> share real cache functions just these dummy ones.
>>>> So it is the right place: arch/arm/lib/cache.c to put the dummy
>>>> cache function.
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>> We may re-evaluate
>>>>> our dummy ones at some point in the future when people try and use some
>>>>> particular combination harder, see for example the PowerPC dummy cache
>>>>> functions we just recently dropped.  Thanks!
>>>> If this patch set are ok for you. I will sent more patches to drop
>>>> the dummy cache functions in <arch>/cpu/ folders.
>>> Right, that's the best palce I think, baring an existing arch having a
>>> location for weak cache functions already (like arm does).
>>>
>>>> Also the flush_cache() in arch/arm/lib/cache.c can be dropped and
>>>> just call flush_dcache_range() as the ARM1136, ARM926ejs alreay
>>>> implemented their own flush_cache().
>>> Nope, other things fail if you do that (vpac270_nor_256 and 24 others at
>>> least so far in my test build).
>> Does it fail to compile or on running? As I don't have the board to test
>> the binary, but I don't find any compile error when I apply such a patch.
>> Maybe it is better to sent out my patch for you to check.
> VPAC is PXA270 and to my knowledge, PXA has no cache support in place at all.

ok, so use a empty function is reasonable for pxa.

Marek, Tom

I just sent out another two patches:
first one is drop the invalidate_dcache_range()/flush_dcache_range().
second one is drop the flush_cache() function.

Could you check those two patches? thank you.

Best Regards,
Josh Wu