Hi Reinhard, On 12/08/2011 14:32, Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Dear *ALL*, >>> It is embarrassing to admit, but I've __wrongly__ assumed that *_range() >>> functions are accepting the start address and range for >>> invalidation/flushing. >> >> Do you mean we're hitting again a confusion between *_range(start, stop) >> and *_range(start, length)? >> >> If so, then the need to get rid of 'anonymous prototypes' becomes >> greater yet. > > Maybe the parameters should even be of type (void *start, void *beyond_end) ? > We are talking of addresses here anyway. Most likely the calling place > has it as pointer, and inside the function it might have to be casted.
Agreed, but that's an overall change to make across all architectures, not only ARM -- I don't want to add signature divergence to the current issue. > Reinhard Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
