On Wednesday 10 August 2011 11:41 PM, Anton Staaf wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Aneesh V<ane...@ti.com> wrote: >> Hi Anton, >> >> On Tuesday 09 August 2011 10:09 PM, Anton Staaf wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure what the larger context of this change is, but it seems >>> like a bad idea to me. There are a lot of locations in U-Boot that >> >> Please see this thread for the context. >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/105113/focus=105135 > > Ahh, I missed this thread (Its title became stale). :) But I > completely agree with the outcome, we need to fix the unaligned buffer > problem. > >> >>> will end up causing an unaligned invalidate (ext2 and dos file system >>> code in particular). And this change will cause those unaligned >>> invalidates to possibly throw away stores to adjacent variables. If >> >> No. Those partial cache-lines on the boundary are left alone. They are >> not invalidated. So, it still affects only the party calling the >> invalidate. > > Ahh, you are correct. I missed that the change would cause fewer > cache lines to be invalidated. In this case I am much happier with > this change. In light of this I still think the warning is a little > mild, since it means that the driver that called the invalidate is > certainly going to get the wrong values. Perhaps changing it to an > error would be good (I realize that functionally it would be > identical, but it would be more potent psychologically). I don't > think an assert is warranted in this case since as Albert points out > it would prevent "online" debugging of U-Boot which is a very useful > way of working.
Ok. I will change the warning to an error. br, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
