Hi Mike, On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:35:50 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2011 11:28:18 Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:57:10 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Friday, August 19, 2011 05:25:13 Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > > > + cache_align_buf = memalign(get_dcache_line_size(), > > > > > > nowhere do i see get_dcache_line_size() defined > > > > Please look to the following post: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/110501/ > > > > and another related with this issue: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/110300/ > > if you're posting patches with dependencies, you need to mention them > explicitly (below the "---" area), or send proper patch series > ([PATCH N/M]). > > ignoring that, this patch will break all arches except arm. that's > bad mmmkay. you probably need to move that weak def out of arm's > cache.c and into like lib/cache.c. Yes, I will prepare two patch series: One addressing the get_dcache_line_size function for all u-boot architectures. Another patch series will address changes to the drivers/mmc.c file. > > > also, what is the code size increase with your patch ? > > > > Code size overhead (s5p_goni target): > > Without proposed changes: 167928 B (u-boot.bin) > > With changes: 168208 B (u-boot.bin) > > > > Delta: 280 B > > np if it gives significant (more than system noise) speedups. any > details on that ? > -mike No tests performed yet. The goal of those patches is to preserve the MMC subsystem functionality when dcache is enabled (the ext_csd[512] corruption is observed with d-cache enabled). I'm particularly interested if the approach with memalign and get_dcache_line_size is the preferred way to go. I will think about some reliable ways to measure the MMC performance with enabled and disabled MMC subsystem. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung Poland R&D Center Platform Group _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot