From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Scholz Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:32:35 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] asynchronous clocking mode for arm920t Message-ID: <4278B2D3.3070705@imc-berlin.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi all, ( was: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 4/4] add csb637 (at91rm9200) support ) I wrote: >> this patch switches the at91rm9200 to synchronous clock mode after >> initialization (it would otherwise stay in FastBus mode which is >> the _slowest_ clock mode). > > But I thought FastBus mode is the prefered setting for ARM cpus. Now I retract the above statement and claim the oposite! ;-) Anders' is correct. Atmel support told me a year ago "Linux uses the Asynchronous mode." With his patch I now get 79.87 BogoMIPS again (without less the 40). So I helps for AT91RM9200. But I don't see something similar for my i.MX ARM9 and still this on in running as fast as expected... The reason ist that this setting is done in board/mx1fs2/lowlevel_init.S and board/scb9328/lowlevel_init.S. So I'd say the asynchronous clocking mode is best for all arm920t cpus and thus maybe this is the better patch: Index: u-boot/cpu/arm920t/start.S =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/u-boot/u-boot/cpu/arm920t/start.S,v retrieving revision 1.13 diff -u -r1.13 start.S --- u-boot/cpu/arm920t/start.S 5 Apr 2005 22:30:51 -0000 1.13 +++ u-boot/cpu/arm920t/start.S 4 May 2005 11:27:35 -0000 @@ -246,13 +246,14 @@ mcr p15, 0, r0, c8, c7, 0 /* flush v4 TLB */ /* - * disable MMU stuff and caches + * disable MMU stuff and caches, switch to Asynchronous Clocking Mode */ mrc p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0 bic r0, r0, #0x00002300 @ clear bits 13, 9:8 (--V- --RS) bic r0, r0, #0x00000087 @ clear bits 7, 2:0 (B--- -CAM) orr r0, r0, #0x00000002 @ set bit 2 (A) Align orr r0, r0, #0x00001000 @ set bit 12 (I) I-Cache + orr r0, r0, #0xC0000000 @ set bit 31 (iA) and 30 (nF) mcr p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0 Can someone comment on the s3c24x0 cpu? -- Steven