Hi Benoît, On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com> wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On Monday, September 3, 2012 6:50:14 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Hi Benoît, >> >> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:25:15 +0200 (CEST), Benoît Thébaudeau >> <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com> wrote: >> >> > Dear Wolfgang Denk, >> > >> > On Sunday, September 2, 2012 6:30:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> > > Dear Benoît Thébaudeau, >> > > >> > > In message >> > > <1725235724.2300239.1344694624384.javamail.r...@advansee.com> you >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On 08/11/2012 05:18 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > > ... >> > > > > if you want dcache disabled, then why don't you run `dcache >> > > > > off` >> > > > > first ? i >> > > > > think it's useful to be able to do both, and forcing it one >> > > > > way >> > > > > is >> > > > > wrong. >> > > > > >> > > > > thus, NAK from me. >> > > > > -mike >> > > > >> > > > Because you will very likely trust mtest and forget about >> > > > running >> > > > `dcache off` >> > > > first, so you may then be happy about falsely positive mtest >> > > > results. Moreover, >> > > > I can't find any sense or usefulness in running mtest with >> > > > dcache >> > > > enabled. >> > > >> > > I agree with Mike. >> > > >> > > "UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, >> > > because that would also stop you from doing clever things." >> > > - >> > > Doug Gwyn >> > > >> > > So NAK from me, too. >> > >> > OK, but do you agree with the following that Mike and me agreed on >> > after that? >> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-August/130650.html >> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-August/130726.html >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/176909/ >> >> I did already reply to this, but since the agreement is brought back, >> I >> think I should re-state my opinion: such a warning line will most >> likely >> be overlooked, thus has little value. People using mtest should know >> that they must check/set dcache state before running mtest. > > If this line is overlooked, it's the same as not having it. If it is not > overlooked, it is useful both to detail the test conditions and as a reminder > not to do stupid things. This line does not prevent users from doing any > manual > dcache check/enable/disable operation they want before running mtest. All in > all, adding this line can only be beneficial.
I agree - particularly when somebody else is looking at the output (on the ML for example) and notices it. I'm also inclined to not 100% trust dcache operations (we all know that cache support is in a state of flux) so something like: # dcache on # mtest 0x80100000 0x90000000 0xaabb If you get back: Testing 0x80100000 ... 0x90000000 (dcache: off): You know something is wrong with the dcache on implementation Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
