> > > + unsigned long end = start + size - 1;
> > > +
> > > + v8_flush_dcache_range(start, end);
> > > +}
> > We should use the existing indirection with struct cache_fns
> > here, then we could share the code.
>
> AArch64 used to use struct cache_fns, but that approach was decided
> against in 4b57aae26c0ada3139ccb1011bdcbd88dc7e1a91 ("ARM: Create own
> cache.c file for aarch64") by Sascha. My interpretation of it is that
> adding struct cache_fns back would not be particularly welcome, but I
> am more that happy to do it if told otherwise.
To be clear - my comments was based on the wrogn assumption
that we had cache_fns for 64 bit.
As long as we do not see a v9 (do not follow ARM) then I see no
reason for adding the extra indirection / complexity.
Sam
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
