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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
