From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WPnQK-0007k7-Nb for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:22:53 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c13so4869861eek.37 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:22:22 +0100 From: Alexander Aring Message-ID: <20140318062220.GA17105@omega> References: <20140317064328.GB18901@omega> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: i.MX21 ADS NAND flash bad blocks scan. Barebox vs Linux To: Cristiano De Alti Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:25:59PM +0000, Cristiano De Alti wrote: > Alexander Aring writes: > > > > > Hi, > > > > just an idea... don't asking about why. But can you please disable > > > > ARM_OPTIMZED_STRING_FUNCTIONS > > > > and test it again? I will check something there... > > > > - Alex > > > > I've disabled the above CONFIG in Barebox and I don't see any difference in > the duration of the bad blocks scan. Should it take longer? > What was the idea here? > Thanks for your help. I didn't imagine supporting this board was still of > some interest for someone ;) > mhh then sorry, I experienced a slow imx nand some time ago, too. The config ARM_OPTIMZED_STRING_FUNCTIONS helped to improve the speedup. Was just a try, I never looked deeper into the issue... The issue was a slow tftp with a 'special' host ethernet card. I never realize what the real problem was and I don't have this hardware anymore. - Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox