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