Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] riscv: mm: dma-noncoherent: Switch using function pointers for cache management

[Andrea Parri]

> But other other point is adding more cache flushing variants should not
> be easy.  Everyone should be using the standardize version.  If it's not
> implemented in hardware despite having ratified extensions you can fake
> it up in SBI.  Yes, that's way more expensive than indirect calls, but
> that's what you get for taping out new hardware that ignores the actual
> architecture specification and just does their own made up shit.

FWIW, ALTERNATIVE_X() for "three instructions with (what should be a)
crystal-clear semantics" already smells like "we're doing it wrong" to
me, function pointers would be closer to "we're looking for trouble".

Thanks,
  Andrea