On 10/20/2016 01:01 PM, Vignesh R wrote: > > > On Wednesday 19 October 2016 08:58 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 10/19/2016 05:19 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>> On 10/19/2016 04:41 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, > ... >>>>>>> You can probably pull this block from the else branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, I guess writesb() can handle zero byte write request I believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> With above change, can I have your Acked-by/Reviewed-by? >>>>> >>>>> Also try to get the 'sf update' data before and after and append it on >>>>> commit message. >>>> >>>> Why? Seems useless to me. >>> >>> Since it's a performance improvement patch better to have that >>> numbers, no harm getting that data. >> >> Urghhhh, sf update is mixing multiple access patterns, it is by no means >> a good performance metric for evaluating performance of the >> write path. >> >> What you would need to do here is perform long unaligned writes >> repeatedly (to eliminate outliers) and measure the improvement. >> And you'd have to make sure the erase cycle is not counted in. >> >> I suspect the performance improvement would be negligible, but >> I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If it'd be negligible, then >> we should probably not complicate the code more and just drop >> this patch. >> > > Today, I was performing unaligned writes of various sizes to get > performance numbers and discovered that unaligned writes (i.e txbuf > address is not word aligned or write_byte % 4 != 0) are sometimes > failing on TI platforms with Cadence QSPI (with or w/o this patch) :( > Reverting the patch "mtd: cqspi: Simplify indirect write code" seems to > be helping. I don't see anything obviously wrong here. Let me debug > whats causing the difference and get back.
Can you please drill into it ? I'd be happy to help testing. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
