On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 03:23:36PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 20:31, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote:
If we have multiple weak implementations of functions, the linker might choose any of these. ARM and RISC-V already provide a weak implementation of flush_dcache_all().
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com
cmd/cache.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/cmd/cache.c b/cmd/cache.c index 0254ff17f9b..16fa0f7c652 100644 --- a/cmd/cache.c +++ b/cmd/cache.c @@ -52,11 +52,14 @@ static int do_icache(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, return 0; }
+/* ARM and RISC-V define a weak flush_dcache_all() themselves. */ +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARM) && !defined(CONFIG_RISCV) void __weak flush_dcache_all(void) { puts("No arch specific flush_dcache_all available!\n"); /* please define arch specific flush_dcache_all */ }
Aren't we supposed to add a single __weak function so the linker can replace it? IOW why is the declaration for Arm/riscv a weak one?
Yeah, I'm going to see about re-structuring this a little bit right now.