On 03/20/2013 05:11:57 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:36:05 -0500, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On 03/20/2013 02:15:19 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:43:15AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 03/20/2013 09:58:36 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Albert,
In message 20130320145927.2031b913@lilith you wrote:
I do understand what it does, but I still don't get why it
should be
done, since precisely payload control transfer happens
through
bootm and
the like which already properly flush cache.
It doesn't always happen through bootm. Standalone apps use the "go" command.
So, to try and be a bit more verbose about this, for U-Boot applications which use 'go', we still need to ensure cache coherence, which is
why
bootm does a cache flush, we need some way to flush in this case.
It's also an issue with using the "cpu <n> release" command.
And in this case you aren't better served by say bootelf ?
That wouldn't handle the "cpu release" case. In any case, "go"
exists
and is currently the recommended way to launch a standalone
application
in doc/README.standalone.
It's a user command! How can it be dead code? I don't know of
a
way to include a human user in a patchset...
Can you hightlight what exactly causes the world today to go off
and
fail? Is the hello_world example app sufficient in this case or
do we
need something much larger?
A user inside Freescale is running standalone performance test apps, using both "go" and "cpu <n> release" (since the test needs to run
on
all CPUs). They are seeing cache problems running on a T4240 if
they
don't have this flush. This flush is architecturally required
between
modifying/loading code and running it.
Still, why make it a shell command? Since this user needs a flush with "go" and "cpu release", then we should add a programmatic global cache flush in the "go" and "cpu release" commands.
Why add any new commands? They could all be subcommands of bootm! :-)
Really, instead of adding one command, you want to modify *two* commands to do the same thing separately, which involves changing the syntax of both commands to accept memory range information?
-Scott