"The CpuDxe interface will be the wrapper." Yes, of course. It needs to be added. I was just saying that maybe any CMO checking is not required there as cmo library will take care of it.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:24 PM Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:42:57AM +0530, Dhaval Sharma wrote: > > Sunil, > > I thought "WriteBackDataCacheRange not supported" is more explicit over > > "CMO not available". > > > Okay. > > > @Pedro Falcato <pedro.falc...@gmail.com> For the example you mentioned, > is > > your concern more about someone not being able to notice the problem > (that > > the system is non-coherent) at the time of development and later ending > up > > with corrupted data during production? And you are suggesting that an > > Assert helps address that problem by making that problem more visible to > > the developer and a verbose warning does not? > > > > I can create a patch for CpuFlushCpuDataCache but I think we should avoid > > CMO based return in there. Because in case of InvalidateDataCacheRange we > > have an alternate implementation of fence in the absence of CMO. So it is > > better to let riscvcache decide the right implementation. > > > The CpuDxe interface will be the wrapper. See Arm's implementation. > Since CMO support is added now, the CpuDxe interface should be updated. > > Thanks, > Sunil > -- Thanks! =D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#114302): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/114302 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103805230/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
