On 05/27/2016 04:48 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> The problem is that then both that function & its callers would need to
>>> know about the types of cache ops, and there'd need to be some mapping
>>> from flags to the actual cache op valu
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > The problem is that then both that function & its callers would need to
> > know about the types of cache ops, and there'd need to be some mapping
> > from flags to the actual cache op values (of which there'll be a couple
> > more on
On 05/27/2016 12:30 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:13:17PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 05/26/2016 05:58 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
>>> The various cache maintenance routines perform a number of loops over
>>> cache lines. Rather than duplicate the code for performing such loops
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:13:17PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 05:58 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
> > The various cache maintenance routines perform a number of loops over
> > cache lines. Rather than duplicate the code for performing such loops,
> > abstract it out into a new cache_loop ma
On 05/26/2016 05:58 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
> The various cache maintenance routines perform a number of loops over
> cache lines. Rather than duplicate the code for performing such loops,
> abstract it out into a new cache_loop macro which performs an arbitrary
> number of cache ops on a range of a
The various cache maintenance routines perform a number of loops over
cache lines. Rather than duplicate the code for performing such loops,
abstract it out into a new cache_loop macro which performs an arbitrary
number of cache ops on a range of addresses. This reduces duplication in
the existing
6 matches
Mail list logo
