In message 200804210658.07170.sr@denx.de you wrote:
So what do you suggest instead? Removing these functions completely for 440?
Please let's either proviude real, working implementations, or remove the functions.
This would result in bigger changes to common code currently using those functions (especially dcache_disable). Probably by using more #ifdefs there which I would really like not to see.
I don't like to see these either, but it's better than lying in the face of the user.
OK, I removed this patch from my custodian repository. But I assume that you are you asking for additional changes too. Are you asking me to remove (a) all dummy cache entries or (b) to support *real* cache support functions for 440? (a) would lead as explained above to bigger code changes in the common code and (b) is extremely difficult and I just have no time for such a thing currently.
Yes, let's do either (a) or (b). There is no other choice.
BTW: All the already existing 440 dummy cache entries were not introduced by myself.
I am aware of this.
Yes, I am aware that the current (new) implementation of do_bootelf_exec() needs to be fixed for this, too - and maybe some other places as well. But this is important enough to me.
Understood. We should propably revert this patch then.
This still leaves the problem of the current "implementation" of the other stubs. Please note that as is, we even have *random* behaviour of the code, as the functions are supposed to return the cache status, but no return value gets loaded.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk