On Thursday 12 July 2012 14:12:41 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:25:11 -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h
> >
> > +/* options available for data cache on each page */
> > +enum dcache_option {
> > + DCACHE_OFF,
> > + DCACHE_WRITETHROUGH,
> > + DCACHE_WRITEBACK,
> > +};
> >
> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c
> >
> > -static inline void dram_bank_mmu_setup(int bank)
> > +void set_section_dcache(int section, enum dcache_option option)
> > {
> > + u32 value = section << MMU_SECTION_SHIFT | (3 << 10);
> > u32 *page_table = (u32 *)gd->tlb_addr;
> > +
> > + switch (option) {
> > + case DCACHE_WRITETHROUGH:
> > + value |= 0x1a;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case DCACHE_WRITEBACK:
> > + value |= 0x1e;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case DCACHE_OFF:
> > + value |= 0x12;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> what's the benefit of introducing an arbitrary enum rather than
> defining DCACHE_WRITETHROUGH, DCACHE_WRITEBACK and DCACHE_OFF equal
> respecitvely to 0x1a, 0x1e and 0x12? All it does is force this
> switch case instead of a simple 'value |= option;' statement.
if these magic bitmasks are going to be the same for all arm cores (the enum
is in common arm header), then you can get the advantages of both:
enum dcache_option {
DCACHE_OFF = 0x12,
DCACHE_WRITETHROUGH = 0x1a,
DCACHE_WRITEBACK = 0x1e,
};
then just do:
value |= option;
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
