Dear York Sun,
In message <515f5812.8030...@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: w...@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.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
