On 19.06.24 14:23, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 20:31, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:If we have multiple weak implementations of functions, the linker might choose any of these. ARM and RISC-V already provide a weak implementation of flush_dcache_all(). Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> --- cmd/cache.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/cmd/cache.c b/cmd/cache.c index 0254ff17f9b..16fa0f7c652 100644 --- a/cmd/cache.c +++ b/cmd/cache.c @@ -52,11 +52,14 @@ static int do_icache(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, return 0; } +/* ARM and RISC-V define a weak flush_dcache_all() themselves. */ +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARM) && !defined(CONFIG_RISCV) void __weak flush_dcache_all(void) { puts("No arch specific flush_dcache_all available!\n"); /* please define arch specific flush_dcache_all */ }Aren't we supposed to add a single __weak function so the linker can replace it? IOW why is the declaration for Arm/riscv a weak one?
Some sub-architectures override the architecture specific weak implementation, e.g.
arch/riscv/cpu/andes/cache.c:44: void flush_dcache_all(void) arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c:17: void flush_dcache_all(void) Best regards Heinrich
Thanks /Ilias+#endif static int do_dcache(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[]) -- 2.43.0
