On 03/21/2013 12:02:23 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
On Thursday 21 March 2013 06:01 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 07:27:29 PM, Michael Cashwell wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > On 03/20/2013 06:33:41 PM, Michael Cashwell wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is the purpose of limiting the memory range to be flushed?
Is there a reason one might want to NOT flush certain data sitting in
a dirty cache line out to memory before doing a go or boot command?
>> >
>> > Because it would take a while to flush all of RAM?
>>
>> "Flushing all of RAM" is what trips me up. Fundamentally, that
puts the cart in front of the horse. The goal isn't to flush all of
RAM but rather to flush all of cache.
>
> Right, I was just responding to your question of, "What is the
purpose of limiting the memory range to be flushed?"
>
>> Iterating over the small thing rather than the large would seem
reasonably efficient.
>>
>> But as you say, if there are architectures where that can't be
done and you must pass GBs of physical address space (rather than KB
of cache space) through some process then range limiting it does make
sense.
>
> Right. The range specified is a minimum to be flushed -- if a
particular architecture finds it easier/quicker to flush everything
instead, that's fine.
>
So in your case, how do you find out the addresses of buffers to be
flushed from command ?
Just thinking how this can be used generically ?
I'm not sure what you're asking. How does the user know what address
range to pass to the command? It's whatever covers the program they
want to run.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
