RE: LS1021A performance

[Renaud Barbier <Renaud.Barbier@ametek.com>]

 
> 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@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
> 
> 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 |