Dear Tom Rini, > On 06/15/2012 07:25 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Dear Tom Rini, > > > >> On 06/14/2012 10:48 PM, R, Sricharan wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > >>>> If we are built with D-CACHE enabled but have run 'dcache off' and > >>>> then attempt to flush unaligned regions we spam the console with > >>>> problems that aren't true (as the cache was off). > >>>> > >>> Today we do cache maintenance operations after the dcache is turned > >>> off. One example is before jumping to kernel, we try to invalidate > >>> the caches, in cache turned off state. So with this patch those > >>> maintenance calls will do nothing, which is not correct. > >> > >> Ah yes, But, shouldn't we be doing these same operations as part of > >> turning the cache off? > >> > >>> If it is a problem with unaligned regions, then that is the only > >>> > >>> thing to be fixed > >>> > >>> right ?. Just trying to understand why this change is required ? > >> > >> The problem is that within the USB/network/filesystem stacks we have a > >> lot of not cache safe alignments apparently. Without this every '#' of > >> a tftp gives a screen full of error printfs. So tftp'ing a kernel takes > >> minutes, not seconds, to complete. > > > > I think we should augment uboot to disallow tftp, fatload etc. to cache- > > unaligned address when caches are on ... this'd squash away the need for > > any shitty bounce buffers right away. Tom, will you be able to implement > > it, pretty please? > > But that's not the problem. The problem is all of the stuff going on > within the USB/networking stack.
Correct. This will shield you from the users, I think it's worth to implement like that asap anyway. Or do we want a bounce buffer? I doubt that. The other part is to fix the internals of u-boot. This will be the harder part. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
