LS1021A performance
Lucas Stach
l.stach at pengutronix.de
Thu Mar 30 07:17:32 PDT 2023
Hi Renaud,
Am Donnerstag, dem 30.03.2023 um 13:31 +0000 schrieb Renaud Barbier:
>
>
> > Can you compare SHA256 instead and see if the difference is still as stark?
> > Make sure that CONFIG_DIGEST_SHA256_ARM is enabled.
> The SHA256 is enabled. SHA256 on a 1 MB file:
> Barebox: 843ms
> Linux:
> [root at openware]# time sha256sum /tmp/mtd0
> eef67a3327e3eaa50ee7b1dad87901465f00d76a6308e360a2fedab82c79f493 /tmp/mtd0
>
> real 0m0.059s
> user 0m0.056s
> sys 0m0.001s
>
> On another note, the boot loader using the LS1021A is much slower than using the PPC P1014.
> I compare those two as we used the LS1021A as a replacement for P1014 on a board (same peripherals, same boot sequence)
> The P1014 reach the prompt in 200ms while the LS1021 takes 700ms.
>
> Also, I noticed that the pageflags is different for the DDR memory on Barebox and Linux as seen by the Lauterbach:
> Barebox: write-back/no allocate
> Linux : Inner:write-back/allocate outer: write-back/allocate
> Could that mean the L2 cache Is not used?
> >
> > Do barebox and Linux run at the same CPU frequency?
> According to the Lauterbach, clock ratio have not changed in the clocking registers
> >
As the LS1021A is based on a Cortex A7 your board lowlevel init needs
to call cortex_a7_lowlevel_init() for the caches to work properly.
It's probably a good idea to add a ls1021 lowlevel init function which
calls both of those functions together, like
imx6ul_cpu_lowlevel_init().
Regards,
Lucas
> > Cheers,
> > Ahmad
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Renaud
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Pengutronix e.K. | |
> > Steuerwalder Str. 21 |
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pengutronix.de/__;!!HKOSU0g!D
> > 4uFepgqngTTHamr_7tlQeQoRJqSLL8npxTFBWFF-
> > kjpZuHgzi1quS6EE1ecjCKr_O_FJGPfkAnWXQyfONKJxqgrtQQ$ |
> > 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
>
More information about the barebox
mailing list