BananaPi R1 (lamobo r1) u-boot

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Guys,

@hdegoede

I was just wandering where we stand with having the u-boot including a specific definition for the R1 . I noticed that last month, Jun 15 there was a patch submitted by 'fabioca' to include the R1 into u-boot "New sunxi board: Lamobo Bananapi R1 <http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/New-sunxi-board-Lamobo-Bananapi-R1-tp217120.html>" . Is there a possibility that this could get into the next u-boot release v2015.07 ? The reason is that , the R1 needs more specific treatment of the CONFIG_GMAC_TX_DELAY then the rest of the bananapi family . So it would be good to have Fabio's patch in but perhaps with a different value for CONFIG_GMAC_TX_DELAY=4 , as suggested by Thomas Kaiser here :

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi/17495

and Igor P. here :

https://github.com/igorpecovnik/lib/blob/next/patch/add-lamobo-r1-uboot.patch

The layout for the R1 board is different to that of the other bananapi boards , so perhaps the setting of 4 is more appropriate . The best throughput testing that I have achieved with the R1 , using the u-boot v2015.04 (which has the generic bananapi setting of CONFIG_GMAC_TX_DELAY=3) is 290 Mbits/sec :


 iperf -c 192.168.1.153 -t 30 -u -b 1g
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.153, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams, IPG target: 11.76 us (kalman adjust)
UDP buffer size:  160 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  3] local 192.168.1.1 port 58279 connected with 192.168.1.153 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-30.0 sec  1.01 GBytes   290 Mbits/sec
[  3] Sent 738867 datagrams
[  3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-30.0 sec 1.01 GBytes 290 Mbits/sec 0.056 ms 7/738867 (0.00095%)


Perhaps with setting of 4 , we can improve this . On the wiki Thomas mentions "noone achieved more than 370/460 Mbits/sec TX/RX using iperf" with this setting . Which is quite a bit better than what I am getting now . It may not be the whole solution , but definitely a step in the right direction .

Best Regards

Milorad

_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM (Vger)]     [Linux ARM]     [ARM Kernel]     [Fedora User Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Discussion]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

Powered by Linux