Hi, On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, mo.ucina <mo.ucina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 There's discussion on this upstream [1] and once there's an agreement on this for both u-boot and the kernel DT we can look to get it included for F-23. [1] http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-July/218249.html _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
