On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 13:53 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 12:13:23 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > Thanks for the pointers.
> > > >
> > > > I checked the source and enabled the debug message. Noticed my
> > > > failure
> > > > is due to small LEB and
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 13:54 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 01:04:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > On 08.12.2015 12:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > > > Usage:
> > > > > > > ubifsmount
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - mount 'volume-name' volume
> > > > > > >
> > >
On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 at 02:48:49 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 13:54 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 01:04:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > On 08.12.2015 12:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > > > > Usage:
> > > > > > > > ubifsmount
> >
On 08.12.2015 12:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
Usage:
ubifsmount
- mount 'volume-name' volume
In the mean time, I was not able to get ubifsmount works.
Appreciate
for any quick advise? Else will look into the code tomorrow as my
bed
is calling me :)
I usually write ubinized image into the
On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 12:13:23 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
[...]
> > > Thanks for the pointers.
> > >
> > > I checked the source and enabled the debug message. Noticed my failure
> > > is due to small LEB and PEB size. It was set to 4k which is the sub
> > > -sector erase size of NOR
On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 01:04:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 08.12.2015 12:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Usage:
> > ubifsmount
> >
> > - mount 'volume-name' volume
> >
> > In the mean time, I was not able to get ubifsmount works.
> > Appreciate
> >
> > > > Usage:
> > > > ubifsmount
> > > >
> > > > - mount 'volume-name' volume
> > > >
> > > > In the mean time, I was not able to get ubifsmount works.
> > > > Appreciate
> > > > for any quick advise? Else will look into the code tomorrow as my
> > > > bed
> > > > is calling me :)
> > >
>
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 15:44 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, December 07, 2015 at 03:37:17 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 17:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 03, 2015 at 05:11:23 PM, Chin Liang See
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > >
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 17:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, December 03, 2015 at 05:11:23 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I have another board where I cannot use UBI on QSPI NOR and
> > > reverting
> > > this
> > > patch magically fixes things.
> >
> > I was testing this
On Monday, December 07, 2015 at 03:37:17 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 17:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 03, 2015 at 05:11:23 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > I have another board where I cannot use UBI on QSPI NOR and
> > > >
On Thursday, December 03, 2015 at 05:11:23 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
[...]
> > I have another board where I cannot use UBI on QSPI NOR and reverting
> > this
> > patch magically fixes things.
>
> I was testing this too as enabling the UBIFS on NOR and here are my
> output. Wonder how to
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 01:10 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 03:33:42 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 01:53 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 01:49:09 AM, Chin Liang See
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > > >
> > > >
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 03:33:42 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 01:53 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 01:49:09 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > > Hi Marek,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:02 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:02 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 04:46:54 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
>
> Hi!
>
> > On 09.11.2015 14:49, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
> > +++
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 01:49:09 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:02 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 04:46:54 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > Hi Marek,
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > On 09.11.2015 14:49, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >
>
On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 01:53 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 01:49:09 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
> >
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:02 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 04:46:54 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > >
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 03:33:42 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
[...]
> > > > > I just noticed, that here the L2 cache gets disabled and is not
> > > > > enabled again in function v7_outer_cache_enable(). This looks a
> > > > > bit suspicious.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinh, did you perhaps miss
Hi Marek,
On 09.11.2015 14:49, Marek Vasut wrote:
--- a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
+++ b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@
/*
* Cache
*/
-#define CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC
#define
On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 12:42:24 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On 09.11.2015 01:10, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 05:30:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >> By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
> >> policy
On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 04:46:54 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi!
> On 09.11.2015 14:49, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
>
>
> --- a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
> +++ b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
> @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@
>
> /*
>
> *
Hi Marek,
On 09.11.2015 01:10, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 05:30:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi!
By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
A quick network test shows
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 05:30:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi!
> By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
> policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
> A quick network test shows this:
>
> Without this patch:
> => tftp 10
On Thu 2015-09-17 17:30:29, Stefan Roese wrote:
> By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
> policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
> A quick network test shows this:
>
> Without this patch:
> => tftp 10 big-40mb
> Speed: 1000,
Hi Pavel,
On 18.09.2015 08:16, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2015-09-17 17:30:29, Stefan Roese wrote:
By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
A quick network test shows this:
Without this
Hi!
> >>With this patch:
> >>=> tftp 10 big-40mb
> >>Speed: 1000, full duplex
> >>Using dwmac.ff702000 device
> >>TFTP from server 192.168.1.54; our IP address is 192.168.1.252
> >>Filename 'big-40mb'.
> >>Load address: 0x10
> >>Loading:
On 18.09.2015 08:34, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
With this patch:
=> tftp 10 big-40mb
Speed: 1000, full duplex
Using dwmac.ff702000 device
TFTP from server 192.168.1.54; our IP address is 192.168.1.252
Filename 'big-40mb'.
Load address: 0x10
Loading:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 05:30:29 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
> policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
> A quick network test shows this:
>
> Without this patch:
> => tftp 10
By not defining CONFIG_SYS_ARM_CACHE_WRITEALLOC, the WRITEBACK cache
policy is selected. This leads to much better performance on the SoCFPGA.
A quick network test shows this:
Without this patch:
=> tftp 10 big-40mb
Speed: 1000, full duplex
Using dwmac.ff702000 device
TFTP from server
28 matches
Mail list logo
