4.11 BLOCKER - Multiple BSPs fail to build - cache changes?

[Sebastian Huber]

----- Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmatary at gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmatary at gmail.com> schrieb:
> >> ^^
> >> s/already/only
> >>
> >> Both are working fine with or1k. Let me know which is better. I'd
> >> suggest getting rid of the static declaration as sparc (the only other
> >> CPU that empty-implements the same function) implements it without
> >> "static".
> >>
> >
> > Providing an empty implementation is wrong.  Thus function needs to get removed for the SPARC.
> >
> Agreed. If deleted will this break other SPARC BSPs that depend on
> this empty implementation? I don't know which SPARC BSPs do.

The only consumer of this function is cache_manager.c.  In case the BSP provides this function and it must define CPU_CACHE_SUPPORT_PROVIDES_RANGE_FUNCTIONS and vice versa.  It should be also static inline since the reason for its introduction was performance.

-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.