From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 22:00:00 +0800 Subject: FEC ethernet issues [Was: PL310 errata workarounds] In-Reply-To: <20140403134510.GO7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140402104644.GI7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140402165113.GJ7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140403085636.GL7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140403103206.GN7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140403133637.GB1784@dragon> <20140403134510.GO7528@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140403135957.GE2786@dragon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 02:45:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:36:41PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Russell, > > > > In case there is a confusion. The 900Mbps figure that Fugang said is > > not on any of i.MX6 SoCs that are publicly available - i.MX6SoloLite > > (imx6sl), i.MX6Solo/DualLite (imx6dl), i.MX6Dual/Quad (imx6q), but on > > a new member of i.MX6 family - i.MX6SoloX (imx6sx). This new SoC hasn't > > been announced by Freescale yet. One major improvement of this new SoC > > over its ancestors is the FEC throughput. It claims 1Gbps throughput > > support. So it's really a hardware optimization instead of anything > > that software can do. > > That means it's irrelevant to this discussion because it's different > hardware, with who knows what changes to the memory subsystem and > CPU/cache implementation. Hence, it can't be compared in any way to > the performance I see on iMX6Q and iMX6S. Exactly. I don't think that Fugang should bring i.MX6SX figure into the discussion either, and I see that's where the confusion comes, from what I read the thread today. Shawn