> 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 it.
> > 
> > just out of curiosity (and cos it's a mad idea :), would it be pheasible to 
> > use any constant block of 16k?  eg the first 16k of the kernel (or perhaps 
> > the 16k around some bit of code that would benefit? maybe use lr as the start 
> > of the 16k, we know we're about to run that code so why not just pre-cache 
> > it?))  just seems a waste to load in 16k of nothing if we could load 16k of 
> > 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.

c) You'd be loading into the D$, not the I$. So it wouldn't help you very 
much :-)

R.