
6 Apr
2013
6 Apr
'13
9:01 a.m.
Dear York Sun,
In message 515F5812.8030008@freescale.com you wrote:
adding new:
dcache flush => flush all dcache flush <addr> <size> => flush range
I think this makes more sense. Comments?
It would if the command only deals with dcache. This command flushes dcache _and_ invalidates icache.
Then the name "flush" is even more a bad choice.
If "flush_cache" is acceptable, we can use v2. If not, please suggest one. My candidates are "flushcache", "cacheflush".
Can we not split this into:
dcache flush icache invalidate
? This would make clear what's happening.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Ver-
sions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting
this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred
Million Years.