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.
Full agrement.
Is there an ARM multi-core target in U-Boot where U-Boot runs on one core but its payload shall be started on another, "un-booted", core, and which experiences issues due to the first core not
flushing
cache? If no existing target needs this, then this patch is
useless. If
there exists such a target and issue, then the right fix is not a
shell
command, it is a programmatic flush before the other core is
enabled,
so that it always sees correct RAM.
Agreed again. As is, the patch was only adding dead code, as there are no users of the feature.
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...
<nitpick> Also, it was added unconditionally which is a strict no-no as it just adds code-bloat to everyone, without benefit. </nitpick>
Only for boards which select CONFIG_CMD_CACHE... not sure how fine-grained it makes sense to make it.
-Scott