"The CpuDxe interface will be the wrapper." Yes, of course. It needs to be added. I was just saying that maybe any CMO checking is not required there as cmo library will take care of it.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:24 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:42:57AM +0530, Dhaval Sharma wrote:
> Sunil,
> I thought "WriteBackDataCacheRange not supported" is more explicit over
> "CMO not available".
>
Okay.

> @Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com> For the example you mentioned, is
> your concern more about someone not being able to notice the problem (that
> the system is non-coherent) at the time of development and later ending up
> with corrupted data during production? And you are suggesting that an
> Assert helps address that problem by making that problem more visible to
> the developer and a verbose warning does not?
>
> I can create a patch for CpuFlushCpuDataCache but I think we should avoid
> CMO based return in there. Because in case of InvalidateDataCacheRange we
> have an alternate implementation of fence in the absence of CMO. So it is
> better to let riscvcache decide the right implementation.
>
The CpuDxe interface will be the wrapper. See Arm's implementation.
Since CMO support is added now, the CpuDxe interface should be updated.

Thanks,
Sunil


--
Thanks!
=D
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#114302) | | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [rebecca@openfw.io]

_._,_._,_