Kever & Simon, > On 12 Sep 2017, at 14:30, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Kever, > > On 11 September 2017 at 02:17, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com > <mailto:kever.y...@rock-chips.com>> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> On 09/08/2017 08:17 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> On 8 September 2017 at 01:34, Dr. Philipp Tomsich >>> <philipp.toms...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 8 Sep 2017, at 04:46, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Philipp, >>>>> >>>>> We already enable CONFIG_SPL_OF_CONTROL for all rk3399 board, right? >>>> >>>> I meant “full OF_CONTROL” as opposed to “OF_PLATDATA” (which is dependent >>>> of OF_CONTROL, but is intended as a stopgap measure). >>>> >>>>> For OF_PLATDATA, I would prefer there always have a option to use >>>>> for >>>>> speed up the boot time, not only for ram size. >>>> >>>> I had discussed that with Simon recently and he views OF_PLATDATA as a >>>> last >>>> resort to be used, when there is not enough memory for full OF_CONTROL. >>> >>> >>> Can you use bootstage to measure the boot time impact? >> >> >> I think I have do the statistics before with the timer instead of bootstage. >> And here is the result I got with bootstage(with little change in spl to >> move >> secure_timer_init() before spl_early_init()): >> >> The mark of end_spl: >> With of-pladata: >> 205952 205864 205857 >> without of-platdata: >> 279520 279495 279508 > >> The difference is about 75ms. > > That is enough to justify using of-platdata here. I am not sure why > the difference is so large though.
I have noticed that the RK3399 U-Boot code does not clock up the boot CPU (i.e. rk3399_configure_cpu() is never called). Could this be the reason for the large difference? > >> >> BTW: >> bug1: there is no timer_get_boot_us() in armv8, >> bug2: there is something wrong with "dm_spl", it use bootstage_start() + >> bootstage_accum() >> instead of bootstage_mark_name(), the "board_init_f" will replace >> it, maybe some tag is >> not correct. > > OK. Do you think you could send patches to fix these? I woul prefer if we could move the timer-code away from the generic timer and start using Rockchip-specific DM-timer drivers. This will make the U-Boot code independent of the initialisation of the secure-timer block… > > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
