From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrey Volkov Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:04:19 +0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] BDI vs. Lauterbach In-Reply-To: <20060410163800.B753735260B@atlas.denx.de> References: Your message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:17:25 +0400." <1618325846.20060410201725@varma-el.com> <20060410163800.B753735260B@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <245999876.20060410220419@varma-el.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, April 10, 2006, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Andrey, > in message <1618325846.20060410201725@varma-el.com> you wrote: >> >> > This does not mean anything. I haven't seen a single case where the >> > network speed was the limiting factor. Shuffeling the data through >> > the JTAG is usually much slower. >> Not always. As ex.: allowable MPC5200 JTAG's clock is ... 25 MHz, >> clock of 10 Mbit eth is ... + tcp stack overhead. And now we run >> memory dump command and measure. > But the 25 MHz also includes a LOT of JTAG communication overhead. I > think you won't get even close to a raw 10 Mbps data rate, but I have > to admit that I never actually measured it yet. Did you really > measure this? For example, what difference do you get when you > connect your Lauterbach to a 10 Mbps port vs. a 100 Mbps port? > [This is a serious question; I have never been able to run such a > test myself yet.] Unfortunately, but I have not access to a Lauterbach anymore (as I say, I work with it 3 years ago), so I couldn't run this test too :(. snip.. -- Regards, Andrey Volkov