Dear Ilya Yanok, > Hi Tom, > > 04.07.2012 00:43, Tom Rini wrote: > > On 07/03/2012 01:13 PM, Ilya Yanok wrote: > >> Dear Marek, > >> > >> 30.06.2012 23:28, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> Not exactly. It never worked (at least on my systems) with D-Cache > >>>> enabled. But at least we had a choice of run-time disabled dcache. > >>>> With the recent changes we have to disable cache support at compile > >>>> time. > >>> > >>> I see what you're after. But do you consider runtime disabling the > >>> cache is the > >>> way to go or it's a way of hiding bugs? > >> > >> Both ;) And now we are going to hide even more bugs with compile-time > >> disabling :( > > > > Does someone wish to argue we should disable USB support instead on > > these platforms? I don't see anyone arguing "I have time to fix this > > for v2012.07". > > I just looked at the code more carefully and it seems that most of the > upper layers are in much better shape than I thought. So I think we > should just extend your 2/6 patch to fix both address and size for > structs QH and qtd and don't mess with buffer at all: if we got > unaligned buffer -- it's definetely upper layer bug so we should produce > some noise in this case. As I said upper layers seems to be in good > shape so hopefully there won't be too much noise. > > Hm, probably we should put buffer invalidation under > if(dcache_enabled()) to leave run-time cache disabling as rescue option > for broken upper-layer code.. > > I'm working on the patch now and hopefully will post it this night.
Ilya, thank you for saving my back ;-) And thank you for investing your time into this. > Regards, Ilya. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
