On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Ralf Baechle wrote: > What matters isn't the presence of a second level cache but the actual > properties. The old code was relying almost exclusively on the precense > of an S-cache, so had to be very liberal in it's assumption about that > cache's properties. Performancewise that sucked, badly. Well, I do think the defaults for these "features to be overridden" should be liberal about accepting what's available. That is they should never take anything for granted. Performance doesn't matter. Code has to be correct. It's up to a platform maintainer to tune it if desired and possible. And if we go back in time for c-r4k.c far enough, then we'll see these setup_scache_funcs() and setup_noscache_funcs() functions we used to have for proper handling of set-ups both with and without secondary caches. There could have been bugs, certainly, but at least the framework was in place. Maciej
