Hello Nick,
Nick Thompson wrote:
> On 30/07/10 10:32, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>> Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> On 29/07/10 11:45, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>>>> + i++) {
>>>> + page_table[i] = i << 20 | (3 << 10) | 0x1e;
>>> These numbers ought to be defines, no?
>>>
>>> The 0x1e will not work on da8xx as the data cache is broken. The d-cache can
>>> still be used in write back mode, so the value 0x1a should be used. It would
>
> Here, I should have said write-thru' can still be used...
>
>>> be good to have symbols to define the caching modes: none, wr-thru', wr-back
>>> or some such, similar to Linux.
>> Ah, Ok, good hint!
>>
>> What with:
>>
>> if !defined(CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_SETUP)
>> #define CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_SETUP 0x1e
>> #endif
>>
>> page_table[i] = i << 20 | (3 << 10) |
>> CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_SETUP;
>>
>> So boards/architectures can define there own values?
>
> How about:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITETHROUGH)
> #define CACHE_SETUP 0x1a
> #else
> #define CACHE_SETUP 0x1e
> #endif
>
> page_table[i] = i << 20 | (3 << 10) | CACHE_SETUP;
>
> This would avoid people having to look up the appropriate value(s).
Ok, I am fine with that too.
> This follows the Linux model, but there the symbol CPU_CACHE_WRITETHROUGH
> is used. Ideally, I would suggest we use the CPU form as well, but it
> would imply an effect beyond ARM.
I vote for CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITETHROUGH
bye,
Heiko
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
