From: Ming J. <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-13 19:22:17
|
Hello, I was trying to implement my project with gumstix overo water mounting on the Tobi-Duo expansion board. The problem is that when I test the Tobi-Duo, one of its two 10/100 base network port only give me about 90kb/s transfer speed, while the other one seems alright which gives me about 3Mb/s. I have ordered 2 Tobi-Duo boards, and they both shows the same issue. The slow port is always the one far away from the power supply plug in. I have been trying different images including prebuilt and my own, but the issue keeps still. Has anyone encountered the same problem as me? This is really annoying, because except for the low transfer rate, everything else works fine. It is urgent for my project, and I appreciate for any suggestions. Ming |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-17 17:09:41
|
NEED HELP!!! I got my units wrong in my previous email they should be 3MBytes/sec and 90KBytes/sec which is a factor of 30 difference between the two ports. We ran a test again with each port independently and have confirmed data rates: When we test port1, the network data rate is 3 MBytes/sec from our device to the gumstix and it is about 9 MBytes/sec between our computer and the gumstix: ######################### bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wget http://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 --2010-05-17 18:45:36-- http://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 Connecting to 10.10.100.113:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 126743 (124K) [text/plain] Saving to: `img.jpg.1.1' 100%[======================================>] 126,743 --.-K/s in 0.01s 2010-05-17 18:45:36 (9.64 MB/s) - `img.jpg.1.1' saved [126743/126743] ######################################################## When we test port2, the network data rate between our device and the gumstix is only 57 KBytes/sec and about 102KBytes/sec between our computer and the gumstix: ######################################################## bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wget http://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg --2010-05-17 19:03:41-- http://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg Connecting to 10.10.100.119:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 126743 (124K) [image/jpeg] Saving to: `img.jpg.3' 100%[======================================>] 126,743 102K/s in 1.2s 2010-05-17 19:03:43 (102 KB/s) - `img.jpg.3' saved [126743/126743] ######################################################### We tested this on 2 Tobi Duos, and same issues exist. Could this be a design or hardware problem with the tobi duo board? Or is it possible one of the network ports is defective? We have installed Networkmanager, and running boa. This is a urgent request, please help me out, thanks! mjiang wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I was trying to implement my project with gumstix overo water mounting > on the Tobi-Duo expansion board. The problem is that when I test the > Tobi-Duo, one of its two 10/100 base network port only give me about > 90kb/s transfer speed, while the other one seems alright which gives me > about 3Mb/s. I have ordered 2 Tobi-Duo boards, and they both shows the > same issue. The slow port is always the one far away from the power > supply plug in. > > > > I have been trying different images including prebuilt and my own, but > the issue keeps still. Has anyone encountered the same problem as me? > This is really annoying, because except for the low transfer rate, > everything else works fine. It is urgent for my project, and I > appreciate for any suggestions. > > > > Ming > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28586136.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Bernhard Wörndl-A. <bw...@xd...> - 2010-05-17 17:22:19
|
Hey! I have no Tobi-Duo but I designed a similar hardware, with two ethernet ports that should be here to test by next week, then I'll have a look on its Ethernet Performance. I wouldn't wonder, if this is a hardware problem, because the layout of the Tobi-Duo crap², but we'll see BTW: if you do speed testing, do it with large files, not with kb sized jpgs, otherwhise you won't get any compareable results! Regards *Bernhard Wörndl-Aichriedler* Am 17.05.2010 19:09, schrieb mjiang: > NEED HELP!!! > > I got my units wrong in my previous email they should be 3MBytes/sec and > 90KBytes/sec which is a factor of 30 difference between the two ports. > > We ran a test again with each port independently and have confirmed data > rates: > > When we test port1, the network data rate is 3 MBytes/sec from our device to > the gumstix and it is about 9 MBytes/sec between our computer and the > gumstix: > > ######################### > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wget http://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 > --2010-05-17 18:45:36-- http://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 > Connecting to 10.10.100.113:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > Length: 126743 (124K) [text/plain] > Saving to: `img.jpg.1.1' > > 100%[======================================>] 126,743 --.-K/s in 0.01s > > 2010-05-17 18:45:36 (9.64 MB/s) - `img.jpg.1.1' saved [126743/126743] > ######################################################## > > When we test port2, the network data rate between our device and the gumstix > is only 57 KBytes/sec and about 102KBytes/sec between our computer and the > gumstix: > > ######################################################## > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wget http://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg > --2010-05-17 19:03:41-- http://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg > Connecting to 10.10.100.119:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > Length: 126743 (124K) [image/jpeg] > Saving to: `img.jpg.3' > > 100%[======================================>] 126,743 102K/s in 1.2s > > 2010-05-17 19:03:43 (102 KB/s) - `img.jpg.3' saved [126743/126743] > ######################################################### > > We tested this on 2 Tobi Duos, and same issues exist. Could this be a design > or hardware problem with the tobi duo board? Or is it possible one of the > network ports is defective? We have installed Networkmanager, and running > boa. > > This is a urgent request, please help me out, thanks! > > > mjiang wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I was trying to implement my project with gumstix overo water mounting >> on the Tobi-Duo expansion board. The problem is that when I test the >> Tobi-Duo, one of its two 10/100 base network port only give me about >> 90kb/s transfer speed, while the other one seems alright which gives me >> about 3Mb/s. I have ordered 2 Tobi-Duo boards, and they both shows the >> same issue. The slow port is always the one far away from the power >> supply plug in. >> >> >> >> I have been trying different images including prebuilt and my own, but >> the issue keeps still. Has anyone encountered the same problem as me? >> This is really annoying, because except for the low transfer rate, >> everything else works fine. It is urgent for my project, and I >> appreciate for any suggestions. >> >> >> >> Ming >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >> >> >> > |
From: Bernhard Wörndl-A. <bw...@xd...> - 2010-05-18 19:56:31
|
Hey again =) At first I want to apologize about saying crap to the Tobi-Duo. I really like the gumstix modules - otherwise i wouldn't use them so often - so sorry for that. Gumstix posted my Developer Profile to www.gumstix.net so have a look! Regards *Bernhard Wörndl-Aichriedler* Am 17.05.2010 19:22, schrieb Bernhard Wörndl-Aichriedler: > Hey! > > I have no Tobi-Duo but I designed a similar hardware, with two > ethernet ports that should be here to test by next week, > then I'll have a look on its Ethernet Performance. > I wouldn't wonder, if this is a hardware problem, because the layout > of the Tobi-Duo crap², but we'll see > > BTW: if you do speed testing, do it with large files, not with kb > sized jpgs, otherwhise you won't get any compareable results! > > > Regards > > *Bernhard Wörndl-Aichriedler* > > > > Am 17.05.2010 19:09, schrieb mjiang: >> NEED HELP!!! >> >> I got my units wrong in my previous email they should be 3MBytes/sec and >> 90KBytes/sec which is a factor of 30 difference between the two ports. >> >> We ran a test again with each port independently and have confirmed data >> rates: >> >> When we test port1, the network data rate is 3 MBytes/sec from our device to >> the gumstix and it is about 9 MBytes/sec between our computer and the >> gumstix: >> >> ######################### >> bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wgethttp://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 >> --2010-05-17 18:45:36--http://10.10.100.113/tmp/img.jpg.1 >> Connecting to 10.10.100.113:80... connected. >> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK >> Length: 126743 (124K) [text/plain] >> Saving to: `img.jpg.1.1' >> >> 100%[======================================>] 126,743 --.-K/s in 0.01s >> >> 2010-05-17 18:45:36 (9.64 MB/s) - `img.jpg.1.1' saved [126743/126743] >> ######################################################## >> >> When we test port2, the network data rate between our device and the gumstix >> is only 57 KBytes/sec and about 102KBytes/sec between our computer and the >> gumstix: >> >> ######################################################## >> bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ wgethttp://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg >> --2010-05-17 19:03:41--http://10.10.100.119/tmp/img.jpg >> Connecting to 10.10.100.119:80... connected. >> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK >> Length: 126743 (124K) [image/jpeg] >> Saving to: `img.jpg.3' >> >> 100%[======================================>] 126,743 102K/s in 1.2s >> >> 2010-05-17 19:03:43 (102 KB/s) - `img.jpg.3' saved [126743/126743] >> ######################################################### >> >> We tested this on 2 Tobi Duos, and same issues exist. Could this be a design >> or hardware problem with the tobi duo board? Or is it possible one of the >> network ports is defective? We have installed Networkmanager, and running >> boa. >> >> This is a urgent request, please help me out, thanks! >> >> >> mjiang wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I was trying to implement my project with gumstix overo water mounting >>> on the Tobi-Duo expansion board. The problem is that when I test the >>> Tobi-Duo, one of its two 10/100 base network port only give me about >>> 90kb/s transfer speed, while the other one seems alright which gives me >>> about 3Mb/s. I have ordered 2 Tobi-Duo boards, and they both shows the >>> same issue. The slow port is always the one far away from the power >>> supply plug in. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been trying different images including prebuilt and my own, but >>> the issue keeps still. Has anyone encountered the same problem as me? >>> This is really annoying, because except for the low transfer rate, >>> everything else works fine. It is urgent for my project, and I >>> appreciate for any suggestions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ming >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gumstix-users mailing list >>> gum...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-17 21:44:18
|
Hi, Soren I am using OE to build my own image (bitbake omap3-console-image). I wonder if i could configure this CS4 for U-boot when at the time I create the image. I am thinking to edit the u-boot recipe, but i could be wrong. Please let me know how to edit the u-boot code to configure this CS4. Thanks! In the recipes folder, i got u-boot.inc and severa u-boot_xx.bb files with different versions. Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28589257.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Bernhard Wörndl-A. <bw...@xd...> - 2010-05-17 21:53:55
|
Hey =) Probably the fastest solution to recompile U-Boot it to do it - almost - without bitbake. Clone Repository git clone git://www.sakoman.com/git/u-boot.git;branch=omap3-v2009.11.1;protocol=git Set PATH for cross-compilation to bitbake environment: PATH=<path-to-oe-temp>/cross/armv7a/bin:$PATH make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi- ARCH=arm mrproper make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi- ARCH=arm omap3_overo_config make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi- ARCH=arm That should be a quick solution =) Regards *Bernhard Wörndl-Aichriedler* Am 17.05.2010 23:44, schrieb mjiang: > Hi, Soren > > I am using OE to build my own image (bitbake omap3-console-image). I wonder > if i could configure this CS4 for U-boot when at the time I create the > image. I am thinking to edit the u-boot recipe, but i could be wrong. Please > let me know how to edit the u-boot code to configure this CS4. Thanks! In > the recipes folder, i got u-boot.inc and severa u-boot_xx.bb files with > different versions. > > > Ming > |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-17 17:34:46
|
Thans Bernhard, i will take your advice for testing, but please keep me updated, because i really need this 2 ethernet ports design for my application. Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28586411.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Søren S. C. <li...@ss...> - 2010-05-17 18:07:06
|
Hi Ming, To me this doesn't sound like bad HW (nor bad design), but more like a misconfigured timing setup for the Chip Select (CS4) driving the second LAN9221 chip on the Tobu Duo board - This is purely SW :-)... Please have a look at the code in U-boot which configures the timing for the Chip Selects. I bet it doesn't configure CS4 => You are left with default slow ROM-code timings. With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of CS in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around 4 months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: Do you know)? I haven't tested the Tobi Duo, but I have a normal Tobi which I'm running at 90+Mbps for both send and receive... :-) Best regards - Good luck Søren --- SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-17 18:54:45
|
Hi, Soren This sounds really promising to me, and i will definately try. I will post the results right after i tested. Thanks a lot. Søren Steen Christensen wrote: > > Hi Ming, > > To me this doesn't sound like bad HW (nor bad design), but more like a > misconfigured timing setup for the Chip Select (CS4) driving the second > LAN9221 chip on the Tobu Duo board - This is purely SW :-)... > > Please have a look at the code in U-boot which configures the timing for > the > Chip Selects. > I bet it doesn't configure CS4 => You are left with default slow ROM-code > timings. > > With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, > please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of > CS > in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around 4 > months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: Do > you know)? > > I haven't tested the Tobi Duo, but I have a normal Tobi which I'm running > at > 90+Mbps for both send and receive... :-) > > Best regards - Good luck > Søren > > --- > SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28587281.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Steve S. <sa...@gm...> - 2010-05-17 19:21:17
|
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen <li...@ss...> wrote: > With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, > please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of CS > in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around 4 > months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: Do > you know)? As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. I suspect is something as simple as this: diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 --- a/board/overo/overo.c +++ b/board/overo/overo.c @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) { struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; - /* Configure GPMC registers */ + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of upstream submissions. Steve |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-18 17:55:57
|
hi Steve, I created the patch for u-boot-omap3 naming CS4.patch, and I copied the code exactly same as your post, saving as CS4.patch in recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git. I modified the u-boot-omap3.bb file as the following: ****************************************** require u-boot.inc FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(bb.data.getVar('FILE',d,1))}/u-boot-omap3-git/" SRCREV = "327f51adacfe8c7b633f90306d646ae03e098554" PV = "2009.11.1+${PR}+git${SRCREV}" PR = "r0" SRC_URI = "git://www.sakoman.com/git/u-boot.git;branch=omap3-v2009.11.1;protocol=git \ file://fw_env.config \ + file://CS4.patch;patch=1 \ " S = "${WORKDIR}/git" ****************************************************************************** I ran bitbake as: bitbake -c clean u-boot-omap3 bitbake -c rebuild u-boot-omap3 the erro message is: ################### NOTE: Running task 517 of 762 (ID: 6, /home/bagside/overo-oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git.bb, do_fetch) NOTE: Task failed: Malformed URL: + ERROR: TaskFailed event exception, aborting ERROR: Build of /home/bagside/overo-oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git.bb do_fetch failed ERROR: Task 6 (/home/bagside/overo-oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git.bb, do_fetch) failed NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 516 tasks of which 515 didn't need to be rerun and 1 failed. ERROR: '/home/bagside/overo-oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git.bb' failed ################################### any suggestions?? thanks best regards Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28599334.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2010-05-18 18:08:32
|
Hi Ming, On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:55 AM, mjiang <mj...@in...> wrote: > > hi Steve, > > I created the patch for u-boot-omap3 naming CS4.patch, and I copied the code > exactly same as your post, saving as CS4.patch in > recipes/u-boot/u-boot-omap3_git. I modified the u-boot-omap3.bb file as the > following: > > ****************************************** > require u-boot.inc > > FILESDIR = > "${@os.path.dirname(bb.data.getVar('FILE',d,1))}/u-boot-omap3-git/" > > SRCREV = "327f51adacfe8c7b633f90306d646ae03e098554" > > PV = "2009.11.1+${PR}+git${SRCREV}" > PR = "r0" > > SRC_URI = > "git://www.sakoman.com/git/u-boot.git;branch=omap3-v2009.11.1;protocol=git \ > file://fw_env.config \ > + file://CS4.patch;patch=1 \ Looks like you got an extraneous + at the beginning of the CS4.patch line. That line looks like it came from a patch file (which strips off the leading +'s) -- Dave Hylands Shuswap, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-18 19:29:47
|
Hi Steve, you were right. I took off the + sign. now it buit the u-boot.bin for me. however, after i copy the u-boot.bin to my bootable cared, the gumstix won't boot any more. I am now rebuilding the omap3-console-image to see if the new image makes any difference. thanks, a lot. your code is working, the overo.h in the tmp/overo/ has been updated with the differences for CS4. Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28599703.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-18 22:18:55
|
hi steve, the new buit u-boot.bin seems like does not boot up the board at all. i did rebuilt the console image, but did not change MLO AND uImage files. I don't know what i missed. please help! thanks. Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28602070.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Søren S. C. <li...@ss...> - 2010-05-19 06:53:33
|
Which version of the MLO are you using (and which version of U-boot). I think to remember that newer U-boots require a new x-loader as well ' - At least for BeagleBoard, but I guess as well for Overo? Which kind of serial trace do you get during booting? Where does it go wrong? Søren --- SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-19 15:58:32
|
Hi Soren, I built my own omap3-console image with OE, and both u-boot and uImage were generated at my first buit, but never changed since then. i don't know how to create MLO, so i downloaded it from gumstix pre-built image website. I did not use x-loader. The above stuff can successfully boot up, until i have to add CS4 patch to the u-boot-omap3 to fix the low speed issue to the T0bi-Duo. However, the patch was successfully added, and "u-boot-overo-2009.11.1+r0+git327f51adacfe8c7b633f90306d646ae03e098554-r0.bin" was created. After my replacing the u-boot.bin to the newcreated one, it cannot boot any more. (i did change the new u-boot name to the old one). That is exept u-boot.bin, i did not change any of those uImage and MLO. The serial message when i boot up is like: ############################################ Texas Instruments X-Loader 1.4.2 (May 4 2010 - 11:45:44) Reading boot sector Loading u-boot.bin from mmc U-Boot 2009.11 (May 18 2010 - 23:20:28) OMAP3530-GP ES3.1, CPU-OPP2, L3-165MHz, Max clock-600Mhz Gumstix Overo board + LPDDR/NAND I2C: ready DRAM: 256 MB NAND: 256 MiB *** Warning - bad CRC or NAND, using default environment In: serial Out: serial Err: serial Board revision: 1 No EEPROM on expansion board Die ID #25cc00040000000004035c141802000a Net: ***************************************************** I also believe i should change MLO accordingly, but how with the OE? Please help. Really aprreciate. Ming Søren Steen Christensen wrote: > > Which version of the MLO are you using (and which version of U-boot). > I think to remember that newer U-boots require a new x-loader as well ' > - At least for BeagleBoard, but I guess as well for Overo? > > Which kind of serial trace do you get during booting? Where does it go > wrong? > Søren > > --- > SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28610358.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-19 18:01:22
|
Hi Soren, I just figured out how to build MLO. The followins are what i have done: bitbake -c clean x-load bitbake x-load bitbake -c clean u-boot-omap3 bitbake omap3 bitbake -c clean omap3-console-image bitbake omap3-console-image after this, i got all files: MLO, u-boot.bin and uImage. However, the board does not boot, and process stopped as: ############################################ Texas Instruments X-Loader 1.4.2 (May 4 2010 - 11:45:44) Reading boot sector Loading u-boot.bin from mmc U-Boot 2009.11 (May 18 2010 - 23:20:28) OMAP3530-GP ES3.1, CPU-OPP2, L3-165MHz, Max clock-600Mhz Gumstix Overo board + LPDDR/NAND I2C: ready DRAM: 256 MB NAND: 256 MiB *** Warning - bad CRC or NAND, using default environment In: serial Out: serial Err: serial Board revision: 1 No EEPROM on expansion board Die ID #25cc00040000000004035c141802000a Net: ***************************************************** it is weird, when i bitbake omap3-console-image, those MLO and u-boot.bin don't generate any more (the first time they did). This is why i have to buid them one by one. I want to boot the overo water with my microSD card using the new u-boot.bin to fix the low speed Tobi-Duo issue (hopefully). Any suggestions? thanks!! Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28611974.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-19 19:44:11
|
Hi Steve: I eventially created the new u-boot.bin with the patch code you gave. i also created a new MLO and omap3-console-image. Unfortunatlly, this did not fix my problem. my testing results are followings: #################################### bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.130:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 96.5KB/s 00:32 bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.118:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 3.0MB/s 00:01 #################################### I am again ending up with this about 30 times speed difference between 2 ethernet ports from the Tobi-Duo board. Maybe I misconfigured somthing else, but any suggestions? thanks! By the way, the new overo.c has the CS configured as: **************************************** static void setup_net_chip(void) { struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config4); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config5); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config6); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config7); /* Enable off mode for NWE in PADCONF_GPMC_NWE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base ->gpmc_nwe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nwe); /* Enable off mode for NOE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_noe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_noe); /* Enable off mode for ALE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale); /* Make GPIO 64 as output pin and send a magic pulse through it */ if (!omap_request_gpio(64)) { omap_set_gpio_direction(64, 0); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); udelay(1); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 0); udelay(1); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); } } #endif ********************************************************* but the overo.h does not contain GPMC CS4 ... sakoman wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen > <li...@ss...> wrote: > >> With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, >> please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of >> CS >> in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around >> 4 >> months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: >> Do >> you know)? > > As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 > configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. > > I suspect is something as simple as this: > > diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c > index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 > --- a/board/overo/overo.c > +++ b/board/overo/overo.c > @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) > { > struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; > > - /* Configure GPMC registers */ > + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); > + > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); > > Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of > upstream submissions. > > Steve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613139.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Steve S. <sa...@gm...> - 2010-05-19 20:20:10
|
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM, mjiang <mj...@in...> wrote: > > Hi Steve: > > I eventially created the new u-boot.bin with the patch code you gave. i also > created a new MLO and omap3-console-image. Unfortunatlly, this did not fix > my problem. my testing results are followings: > > #################################### > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.130:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . > uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 96.5KB/s 00:32 > > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.118:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . > uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 3.0MB/s 00:01 > > #################################### > > I am again ending up with this about 30 times speed difference between 2 > ethernet ports from the Tobi-Duo board. Maybe I misconfigured somthing else, > but any suggestions? thanks! I think I mentioned that I hadn't tested the code! My suggestion is to review the code and the OMAP3 documentation to make sure that the code is doing the right thing as far as configuring the CS4 timings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is missing setup, since I just took a guess at what might need to be done! Steve > By the way, the new overo.c has the CS configured as: > > **************************************** > static void setup_net_chip(void) > { > struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; > > /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); > > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config4); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config5); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config6); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config7); > > /* Enable off mode for NWE in PADCONF_GPMC_NWE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base ->gpmc_nwe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nwe); > /* Enable off mode for NOE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_noe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_noe); > /* Enable off mode for ALE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale) | 0x0E00, > &ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale); > > /* Make GPIO 64 as output pin and send a magic pulse through it */ > if (!omap_request_gpio(64)) { > omap_set_gpio_direction(64, 0); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); > udelay(1); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 0); > udelay(1); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); > } > } > #endif > ********************************************************* > but the overo.h does not contain GPMC CS4 ... > > > > sakoman wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen >> <li...@ss...> wrote: >> >>> With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, >>> please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of >>> CS >>> in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around >>> 4 >>> months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: >>> Do >>> you know)? >> >> As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 >> configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. >> >> I suspect is something as simple as this: >> >> diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c >> index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 >> --- a/board/overo/overo.c >> +++ b/board/overo/overo.c >> @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) >> { >> struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; >> >> - /* Configure GPMC registers */ >> + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); >> + >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); >> >> Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of >> upstream submissions. >> >> Steve >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613139.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-19 20:26:14
|
Thanks, please keep me updated with new suggestions. sakoman wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM, mjiang > <mj...@in...> wrote: >> >> Hi Steve: >> >> I eventially created the new u-boot.bin with the patch code you gave. i >> also >> created a new MLO and omap3-console-image. Unfortunatlly, this did not >> fix >> my problem. my testing results are followings: >> >> #################################### >> bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.130:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . >> uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 96.5KB/s >> 00:32 >> >> bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.118:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . >> uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 3.0MB/s >> 00:01 >> >> #################################### >> >> I am again ending up with this about 30 times speed difference between 2 >> ethernet ports from the Tobi-Duo board. Maybe I misconfigured somthing >> else, >> but any suggestions? thanks! > > I think I mentioned that I hadn't tested the code! > > My suggestion is to review the code and the OMAP3 documentation to > make sure that the code is doing the right thing as far as configuring > the CS4 timings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is missing > setup, since I just took a guess at what might need to be done! > > Steve > > >> By the way, the new overo.c has the CS configured as: >> >> **************************************** >> static void setup_net_chip(void) >> { >> struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; >> >> /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); >> >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config4); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config5); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config6); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config7); >> >> /* Enable off mode for NWE in PADCONF_GPMC_NWE register */ >> writew(readw(&ctrl_base ->gpmc_nwe) | 0x0E00, >> &ctrl_base->gpmc_nwe); >> /* Enable off mode for NOE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ >> writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_noe) | 0x0E00, >> &ctrl_base->gpmc_noe); >> /* Enable off mode for ALE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ >> writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale) | 0x0E00, >> &ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale); >> >> /* Make GPIO 64 as output pin and send a magic pulse through it */ >> if (!omap_request_gpio(64)) { >> omap_set_gpio_direction(64, 0); >> omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); >> udelay(1); >> omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 0); >> udelay(1); >> omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); >> } >> } >> #endif >> ********************************************************* >> but the overo.h does not contain GPMC CS4 ... >> >> >> >> sakoman wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen >>> <li...@ss...> wrote: >>> >>>> With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on >>>> Eth0, >>>> please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration >>>> of >>>> CS >>>> in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this >>>> around >>>> 4 >>>> months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: >>>> Do >>>> you know)? >>> >>> As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 >>> configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. >>> >>> I suspect is something as simple as this: >>> >>> diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c >>> index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 >>> --- a/board/overo/overo.c >>> +++ b/board/overo/overo.c >>> @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) >>> { >>> struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; >>> >>> - /* Configure GPMC registers */ >>> + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); >>> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); >>> + >>> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); >>> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); >>> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); >>> >>> Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of >>> upstream submissions. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gumstix-users mailing list >>> gum...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >>> >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613139.html >> Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613732.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Søren S. C. <li...@ss...> - 2010-05-19 20:40:16
|
Hi Steve, > I think I mentioned that I hadn't tested the code! I reviewed your fix against the schematics and I couldn't find any obvious errors... I think it's kind of strange that it didn't do it :-) Søren --- SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk |
From: Søren S. C. <li...@ss...> - 2010-05-19 20:33:08
|
Hi Ming, You managed to make it boot? Great :-) What was the magic fix you had to do in order to get it to boot? Strange that this didn't change anything. Could it be that CS4 is configured wrongly later on in the process somehow (although I - to be honest - don't think so) I find this really strange. Try using "iperf" for doing your performances testing instead of using the scp command. iperf will as well be able to show you number of lost packets etc. => It's better for performance debugging - I don't know exactly what to expect from iperf, but I'm hoping it might show something pointing in some kind of direction :-) Good luck Søren --- SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk -----Original Message----- From: mjiang [mailto:mj...@in...] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:44 PM To: gum...@li... Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] low speed issue for Tobi-Duo! defective Tobi Duo?? Hi Steve: I eventially created the new u-boot.bin with the patch code you gave. i also created a new MLO and omap3-console-image. Unfortunatlly, this did not fix my problem. my testing results are followings: #################################### bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.130:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 96.5KB/s 00:32 bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.118:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 3.0MB/s 00:01 #################################### I am again ending up with this about 30 times speed difference between 2 ethernet ports from the Tobi-Duo board. Maybe I misconfigured somthing else, but any suggestions? thanks! By the way, the new overo.c has the CS configured as: **************************************** static void setup_net_chip(void) { struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config4); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config5); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config6); writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config7); /* Enable off mode for NWE in PADCONF_GPMC_NWE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base ->gpmc_nwe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nwe); /* Enable off mode for NOE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_noe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_noe); /* Enable off mode for ALE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale); /* Make GPIO 64 as output pin and send a magic pulse through it */ if (!omap_request_gpio(64)) { omap_set_gpio_direction(64, 0); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); udelay(1); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 0); udelay(1); omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); } } #endif ********************************************************* but the overo.h does not contain GPMC CS4 ... sakoman wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen > <li...@ss...> wrote: > >> With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, >> please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration of >> CS >> in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around >> 4 >> months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: >> Do >> you know)? > > As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 > configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. > > I suspect is something as simple as this: > > diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c > index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 > --- a/board/overo/overo.c > +++ b/board/overo/overo.c > @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) > { > struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; > > - /* Configure GPMC registers */ > + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); > + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); > + > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); > > Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of > upstream submissions. > > Steve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613139.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-20 05:15:43
|
Hi, Soren Thanks for your help. Sure, I will take your advice to see if iperf will give me new information. Also wna to let u know that i accially did the test by adding patch to take off CS5 registries. That is, in the overo.c, there is no such things like "writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1);" at all. What is strange is that the network performance was not affected at all. Still 30 factors difference, and 3MB/s for the faster one. Therefore, I guess some thing else is taking over the control of LAN9221 registry instead of u-boot. This is only my guess, and hope this could mean something to some one. Again, thanks everybody for help Although I feel almost desperate upon the approaching deadline, I still look forward to new updates. i really hope the problem is duo to the software not the Tobi-duo board. Ming Søren Steen Christensen wrote: > > Hi Ming, > > You managed to make it boot? Great :-) What was the magic fix you had to > do in order to get it to boot? Strange that this didn't change anything. > Could it be that CS4 is configured wrongly later on in the process somehow > (although I - to be honest - don't think so) > > I find this really strange. Try using "iperf" for doing your performances > testing instead of using the scp command. iperf will as well be able to > show you number of lost packets etc. => It's better for performance > debugging - I don't know exactly what to expect from iperf, but I'm hoping > it might show something pointing in some kind of direction :-) > > Good luck > Søren > > --- > SSC Solutions ApS - Denmark - www.ssc-solutions.dk > > -----Original Message----- > From: mjiang [mailto:mj...@in...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:44 PM > To: gum...@li... > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] low speed issue for Tobi-Duo! defective Tobi > Duo?? > > > Hi Steve: > > I eventially created the new u-boot.bin with the patch code you gave. i > also > created a new MLO and omap3-console-image. Unfortunatlly, this did not fix > my problem. my testing results are followings: > > #################################### > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.130:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . > uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 96.5KB/s > 00:32 > > bagside@bagvapp:/tmp$ scp root@10.10.100.118:/boot/uImage-2.6.32 . > uImage-2.6.32 100% 3088KB 3.0MB/s > 00:01 > > #################################### > > I am again ending up with this about 30 times speed difference between 2 > ethernet ports from the Tobi-Duo board. Maybe I misconfigured somthing > else, > but any suggestions? thanks! > > By the way, the new overo.c has the CS configured as: > > **************************************** > static void setup_net_chip(void) > { > struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; > > /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); > > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config4); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config5); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config6); > writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config7); > > /* Enable off mode for NWE in PADCONF_GPMC_NWE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base ->gpmc_nwe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_nwe); > /* Enable off mode for NOE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_noe) | 0x0E00, &ctrl_base->gpmc_noe); > /* Enable off mode for ALE in PADCONF_GPMC_NADV_ALE register */ > writew(readw(&ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale) | 0x0E00, > &ctrl_base->gpmc_nadv_ale); > > /* Make GPIO 64 as output pin and send a magic pulse through it */ > if (!omap_request_gpio(64)) { > omap_set_gpio_direction(64, 0); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); > udelay(1); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 0); > udelay(1); > omap_set_gpio_dataout(64, 1); > } > } > #endif > ********************************************************* > but the overo.h does not contain GPMC CS4 ... > > > > sakoman wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Søren Steen Christensen >> <li...@ss...> wrote: >> >>> With respect to the difference between the read and write speed on Eth0, >>> please search the list. This is as well related to wrong configuration >>> of >>> CS >>> in U-boot. On my recommendation Scott Ellis made a patch for this around >>> 4 >>> months ago - Might be it never entered the upstream baseline (@Sakoman: >>> Do >>> you know)? >> >> As far as I can see there hasn't been a patch submission for CS4 >> configuration, CS5 is already taken care of. >> >> I suspect is something as simple as this: >> >> diff --git a/board/overo/overo.c b/board/overo/overo.c >> index e7c349a..aa8c1be 100644 >> --- a/board/overo/overo.c >> +++ b/board/overo/overo.c >> @@ -278,7 +278,15 @@ static void setup_net_chip(void) >> { >> struct ctrl *ctrl_base = (struct ctrl *)OMAP34XX_CTRL_BASE; >> >> - /* Configure GPMC registers */ >> + /* Configure GPMC registers for CS4 and CS5 */ >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config1); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config2); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config3); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG4, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config4); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG5, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config5); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG6, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config6); >> + writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG7, &gpmc_cfg->cs[4].config7); >> + >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG1, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config1); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG2, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config2); >> writel(NET_LAN9221_GPMC_CONFIG3, &gpmc_cfg->cs[5].config3); >> >> Let me know if this works and I will add it to my next batch of >> upstream submissions. >> >> Steve >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28613139.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28617293.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: ScottEllis <sco...@gm...> - 2010-05-21 00:56:04
|
I think the major problem is GPIO_65 not getting muxed correctly. At the bottom of this post is a u-boot patch that gets respectable speeds from eth1 without messing with the 'non-optimal' timings currently being used by GPMC_CS[4]. I know you guys didn't have a duo-board in hand otherwise you'd have seen this in the log for eth1. ========================================== smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21. irq 225: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option) [<c00f6a40>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xdc) from [<c014bd8c>] (__report_bad_irq+0x30/0x8c) [<c014bd8c>] (__report_bad_irq+0x30/0x8c) from [<c014bf34>] (note_interrupt+0x14c/0x1dc) [<c014bf34>] (note_interrupt+0x14c/0x1dc) from [<c014c840>] (handle_level_irq+0xac/0xf4) [<c014c840>] (handle_level_irq+0xac/0xf4) from [<c01064bc>] (gpio_irq_handler+0x120/0x154) [<c01064bc>] (gpio_irq_handler+0x120/0x154) from [<c00f1070>] (asm_do_IRQ+0x70/0x90) [<c00f1070>] (asm_do_IRQ+0x70/0x90) from [<c00f1af0>] (__irq_svc+0x30/0x80) Exception stack(0xcf823e38 to 0xcf823e80) 3e20: 00000000 00000002 3e40: 00000000 00000000 c0648400 cfa0dec0 00000000 000000e1 60000013 00000000 3e60: c0648420 00000000 00000000 cf823e80 c014c1e8 c014b61c 60000013 ffffffff [<c00f1af0>] (__irq_svc+0x30/0x80) from [<c014b61c>] (__setup_irq+0x23c/0x308) [<c014b61c>] (__setup_irq+0x23c/0x308) from [<c014b810>] (request_threaded_irq+0x128/0x17c) [<c014b810>] (request_threaded_irq+0x128/0x17c) from [<c04a7494>] (smsc911x_drv_probe+0x51c/0x1050) [<c04a7494>] (smsc911x_drv_probe+0x51c/0x1050) from [<c03051f0>] (platform_drv_probe+0x1c/0x24) [<c03051f0>] (platform_drv_probe+0x1c/0x24) from [<c0304178>] (driver_probe_device+0xa4/0x174) [<c0304178>] (driver_probe_device+0xa4/0x174) from [<c03042a8>] (__driver_attach+0x60/0x84) [<c03042a8>] (__driver_attach+0x60/0x84) from [<c0303994>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x4c/0x8c) [<c0303994>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x4c/0x8c) from [<c030326c>] (bus_add_driver+0xf4/0x280) [<c030326c>] (bus_add_driver+0xf4/0x280) from [<c03045ac>] (driver_register+0xbc/0x148) [<c03045ac>] (driver_register+0xbc/0x148) from [<c00f1344>] (do_one_initcall+0x5c/0x1bc) [<c00f1344>] (do_one_initcall+0x5c/0x1bc) from [<c0008404>] (kernel_init+0x94/0x110) [<c0008404>] (kernel_init+0x94/0x110) from [<c00f2900>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8) handlers: [<c033c49c>] (smsc911x_irqhandler+0x0/0x450) Disabling IRQ #225 smsc911x-mdio: probed eth1: attached PHY driver [Generic PHY] (mii_bus:phy_addr=1:01, irq=-1) net eth1: MAC Address: 00:15:c9:28:c6:fc ==================================================== So the smsc911x driver was polling not interrupt driven for eth1. Some timings using iperf and some cross-over cables. Before eth0 read 90 Mbits/sec write 94 Mbits/sec eth1 read 670 Kbits/sec write 702 Kbits/sec After eth0 read 90 Mbits/sec write 94 Mbits/sec eth1 read 74 Mbits/sec write 78 Mbits/sec I'll post a patch with new GPMC_CS[4] timings after I get a chance to do some testing. I did see that you can't use the same GPMC_CONFIG7 settings for both eth0 and eth1. The GPMC doesn't like that. It's in the docs and u-boot will hang. Hope this is enough to get you going Ming. ===================================================== diff --git git/board/overo/overo.h-orig git/board/overo/overo.h index ff936dd..f0d7dec 100644 --- git/board/overo/overo.h-orig +++ git/board/overo/overo.h @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ const omap3_sysinfo sysinfo = { MUX_VAL(CP(GPMC_WAIT1), (IEN | PTU | EN | M0)) /*GPMC_WAIT1*/\ MUX_VAL(CP(GPMC_WAIT2), (IEN | PTU | EN | M4)) /*GPIO_64*/\ /* - SMSC911X_NRES*/\ - MUX_VAL(CP(GPMC_WAIT3), (IEN | PTU | EN | M0)) /*GPMC_nCS3*/\ + MUX_VAL(CP(GPMC_WAIT3), (IEN | PTU | DIS | M4)) /*GPIO_65*/\ /*DSS*/\ MUX_VAL(CP(DSS_PCLK), (IDIS | PTD | DIS | M0)) /*DSS_PCLK*/\ MUX_VAL(CP(DSS_HSYNC), (IDIS | PTD | DIS | M0)) /*DSS_HSYNC*/\ -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28628612.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: mjiang <mj...@in...> - 2010-05-22 00:06:57
|
Hi Scott: The patch you gave me worked, and it fixed the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although i did not verify it by applying to my devices, the wget and scp tests both gave me 3MB/s for both ports from the Tobi-Duo now. I did not take the screen shot from my test, but i will post the results for people to study once i work with it again on Tuesday. Again, thanks very much to all people that assisted me with great ideas and advices these days. Really appreciate it. Best regard Ming -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-speed-issue-for-Tobi-Duo-tp28551558p28640129.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |