Hi Stephen, On 18 October 2016 at 12:58, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 10/18/2016 10:23 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On 17 October 2016 at 15:35, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >>> >>> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >>> >>> SoC-specific logic may be required for all forms of cache-wide >>> operations; invalidate and flush of both dcache and icache (note that >>> only 3 of the 4 possible combinations make sense, since the icache never >>> contains dirty lines). This patch adds an optional hook for all >>> implemented cache-wide operations, and renames the one existing hook to >>> better represent exactly which operation it is implementing. A dummy >>> no-op implementation of each hook is provided. These dummy >>> implementations are moved into C code, since there's no need to >>> implement them in assembly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/cache.S | 6 ------ >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/cache_v8.c | 23 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S | 4 ++-- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/system.h | 5 ++++- >>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra186/cache.c | 2 +- >>> 5 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >> >> I think we should have a proper interface for this stuff rather than >> weak functions. Maybe we need a linker-list approach, or a cache >> uclass? > > > What's improper about this interface? Presumably we could argue that no > function in the entire of U-Boot be called by symbol name, which doesn't > seem useful. > > I'm not sure exactly what you envisage by a linker-list approach. Can you > provide some background? I understand how the linker can construct list of > objects/implementations/..., but that doesn't seem useful here since there's > a known-ahead-of-time single implementation of these functions in a single > build of U-Boot.
Your own commit messages says that this is SoC-specific. I'm suggesting that we define an interface (which I think you have already done with your header file additions), and allow SoCs to implement it via a linker list. IMO the cache code in U-Boot is starting to get a bit creaky. > > A cache uclass seems like /massive/ overkill, especially since I'd expect > these very low-level functions to be required well before any higher level > code like DM/classes/... to be available. DM is available very early. But it's not clear from your patch when this code is actually called. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
