--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:51:45PM +0000, Chris Gilbert wrote:
> On Thursday 08 March 2001 11:15 am, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Well the SA TRM definitely says that two banks aren't necessary iff the
> > memory is unused for any other purpose.  (maybe this was a hack to work
> > around not draining the write buffers properly :-)  I've been using this
> > code for ~6 months in my own kernel and not seen any ill effects from i=
t.
>=20
> just out of curiosity (and cos it's a mad idea :), would it be pheasible =
to=20
> use any constant block of 16k?  eg the first 16k of the kernel (or perhap=
s=20
> the 16k around some bit of code that would benefit? maybe use lr as the s=
tart=20
> of the 16k, we know we're about to run that code so why not just pre-cach=
e=20
> it?))  just seems a waste to load in 16k of nothing if we could load 16k =
of=20
> code that we're likely to run.

a) you'd have to round it to some value I'd have to look up
b) more important: you'd have to make sure it is NOT the address range that
   you want to flush out of the cache in the first place.

Regards,
	-is

--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQEVAgUBOqjyuDCn4om+4LhpAQG2qQgAr43V6sv7OixKsrPEcip9fFW4xJDrNw95
OzFxz/3+iilU4gqz9l9u6DtGCo5FlTTiNsgKVgeEqw1vjqRKlmlg0/BDklVvzP8P
/RSdzqZm25Cxj/WgwVXR3ZL8yMe7ddFahNvKJuZTiopiSL6JQvqk+5bauSjNmhvZ
GT7PkBePy7wv6yK2fFOcggs+Qagg4BVnKhvDB4cQMRV6JSbx0mfhHI7B388c5DBS
uAczcxwXHB9EcG/HPaCKn7W4bmaZW+q17i+YqCXK2HINCn5lGAo/9j3Rr+/sIrDT
AUXpsSUCwngldCveW/OvicNkM8ZRpicyjLCquR2VCz0xY9jliPOIQg==
=D7HV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7--