On 03/20/2013 12:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:43:15AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 03/20/2013 09:58:36 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> Dear Albert, >>> >>> In message <20130320145927.2031b913@lilith> you wrote: >>>> >>>> I do understand what it does, but I still don't get why it should be >>>> done, since precisely payload control transfer happens through >>> bootm and >>>> the like which already properly flush cache. >> >> It doesn't always happen through bootm. Standalone apps use the >> "go" command. > > So, to try and be a bit more verbose about this, for U-Boot applications > which use 'go', we still need to ensure cache coherence, which is why > bootm does a cache flush, we need some way to flush in this case. > > And in this case you aren't better served by say bootelf ?
We have a user's case to release secondary cores to run user's application which is in main memory. The secondary cores don't necessarily share the cache with the core u-boot is running, depends on hardware implementation. Without flushing the cache, those cores don't have the correct code to fetch. York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
