Dear, Dirk
2009/9/4 Dirk Behme <dirk.be...@googlemail.com>
> Kyungmin Park wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Dirk Behme<dirk.be...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Kyungmin Park wrote:
> ...
> >>>>> + if (get_device_type() != 0xC100) {
> >>>> Hmm, what is this "0xC100" ?
> >>> Now we got two cpu, s5pc100 and s5pc110. In case of s5pc100 we don't
> >>> need to turn off l2 cache. but s5pc110 needs it.
> >>> So first check the device type, actually cpu type. then determine turn
> >>> off l2 cache or not.
> >> "0xC100" is the device type of s5pc100 then? So it should be
> >>
> >> if (get_device_type() != S5PC100_DEVICE)
> >>
> >> ? I hear some people crying "please use macro" ;)
> >
> > Agreed. DONT_NEED_CACHE_FLUSH?
> >
> >> But I don't like this selection here. When we get additional similar
> SoCs,
> >> we will end with something like
> >>
> >> if (get_device_type() != 0xC100) ||
> >> (get_device_type() != FOO) ||
> >> (get_device_type() != BAR)) ||
> >> ... {
> >>
> >> modifying each time cpu/arm_cortexa8/cpu.c.
> >>
> >> I would like more that we are able to compile the functionality based on
> the
> >> config file we use for compilation. E.g. provide emtpy
> l2_cache_disable();
> >> function for SoCs that don't need it, but have functionality behind it
> where
> >> needed.
> >>
> >> With above patch, this would then become something like
> >>
> >> cpu/arm_cortexa8/s5pcxxx/dcache.S
> >>
> >> -> Implements invalidate_dcache() (or implement a Cortex A8 generic one
> in
> >> cpu/arm_cortexa8/cache.S)
> >>
> >> cpu/arm_cortexa8/s5pcxxx/cache_110.S
> >>
> >> -> Implements l2_cache_enable()/disable()
> >>
> >> cpu/arm_cortexa8/s5pcxxx/cache_100.S
> >>
> >> -> Implements *empty* l2_cache_enable()/disable()
> >>
> >> In cpu/arm_cortexa8/s5pcxxx/Makefile you then could have
> >>
> >> SOBJS-y += dcache.o
> >> SOBJS-$(CONFIG_S5PC100) += cache_100.o
> >> SOBJS-$(CONFIG_S5PC110) += cache_110.o
> >>
> >> What do you think about this?
> >>
> >
> > Basically agreed, of course we can think weak attribute but now we
> > have to support both cpu simultaneously.
> > with this reason. we check the device_type at here.
>
> What's about having this check in SoC specific code instead of Cortex
> A8 generic code, then?
>
> E.g apply patch
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-August/058492.html
>
> and then create
>
> cpu/arm_cortexa8/s5pcxxx/cache.S
>
> with
>
> invalidate_dcache() {
> if (get_device_type() == S5PC100_DEVICE)
> return();
> ...
>
> l2_cache_enable() {
> if (get_device_type() == S5PC100_DEVICE)
> return();
> ...
>
> etc.
>
> That is, have the SoC dependent part in SoC specific directory/file.
>
> Best regards
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>
I know about the discussion of this issue between you and Jean-Christophe.
but it is gone without resolving.
So, I want to make issue again.
anyway,,
Actually, we don't need the function of get_device_type()
I think that function is omap specific function.. isn't it?
but.. because of current code already use that function, I had to use that
function
If you have plan to move the cache routines into SoC,
I think you can remove the argument for device_type. (check device type in
omap3's cache routines)
And I want to remove CONFIG_L2_OFF also.
We can know this through device type or soc type.
How about make new function?
e.g l2_off() or need_cache_flush() etc,
Please rework for removing dependency of omap3 soc first.
And then, I'll make new patch for s5pc1xx soc.
Many thanks :)
Minkyu Kang.
--
from. prom.
www.promsoft.net
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
