From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:57:39 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] ARM926ejs: Add routines to invalidate
	D-Cache
In-Reply-To: <4E3FB993.1080602@emk-elektronik.de>
References: <1312519452-22926-1-git-send-email-hong.xu@atmel.com>	<4E3B8A16.50604@aribaud.net>
	<4E3B8FF3.2070400@atmel.com> <4E3B91C1.2040307@aribaud.net>
	<4E3B9753.3020002@ti.com> <4E3BC715.9070706@atmel.com>
	<4E3BCA55.5070003@ti.com> <4E3BCDEB.8090106@aribaud.net>
	<4E3BD953.8050502@ti.com> <4E3BED77.1080508@aribaud.net>
	<4E3C0566.2020303@ti.com> <4E3E36ED.5080601@aribaud.net>
	<4E3F9D2A.1030002@ti.com> <4E3FAEE6.4010208@aribaud.net>
	<4E3FB378.7080901@emk-elektronik.de> <4E3FB670.2040108@ti.com>
	<4E3FB993.1080602@emk-elektronik.de>
Message-ID: <4E3FBA1B.1020700@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

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