On Wed, 13 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > I'm starting a new thread, because I worry that I was not clear > in regards to my question about the residual performance > degradation you are seing in svn head(10% degradation).
You were clear. I just didn't spare the time to perform further tests until now. > I wonder if 1606 (before I made all these changes) is the > *same* speed as svn head. Results with 1520: wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 88.213760s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 83.168205s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 93.108742s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 93.125557s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 88.274002s Results with 1606: wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 88.368996s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 87.641754s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 88.023758s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 85.983398s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 85.729759s Results with 1776: wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 83.168289s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 85.491020s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 86.183746s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 85.299507s wrote file uboot.bin to NAND flash 0 up to offset 0x00073000 in 86.606750s > If 1606 and svn head is the same, then the 10% performance > degradation you are seing happened between 1520 and > 1606 presumably. Well, from results above, I think no conclusion is possible. There is simply too much variations. One could tell from the above that r1776 is faster on average, but I've seen it go in the 93 second range as well before, which led to my initial remark about possible residual regression. If anything, svn head doesn't appear any worse than 1606 or 1520 at this point. > Another thing to test is to use "verify_jtag disable" that I > added this morning to svn head... I prefer not disabling any kind of self check features for such an error prone communication link. Nicolas
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
