From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Egholm Nielsen Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:42:53 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: Moving u-boot location in ram to do full mem-test? In-Reply-To: <20051122233229.A6FA2353D4D@atlas.denx.de> References: <20051122233229.A6FA2353D4D@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de >>I'm using "mtest" to test the sdram somewhat, but parts of the ram is >>ofcourse left untested doing so - due to stack- and u-boot positioning. > Not to forget exception vectors. Oki :-) >>So, I would like to make a new u-boot binary that offered me the >>possibility to test the first part - from "0x0" to "0x108F" and from >>"0x3f8af37" to "0x3ffffff". > Ummm... I seriously doubt if this is worth the effort. Typical > problems like unconnected or shorted data or address lines or > crosstalk will show up very reliably with the existing test. But couldn't there be an error for a specific address segment - say "0x3ff0000"-"0x3ff00ff", which contains u-boot data never being used in u-boot, and not possible to test with mtest? > And the really nasty problems usually happen with burst mode > accesses, and these are *not* covered by any such memory test at all. > In my opinion the test as is is good enough as is to find coarse > problems, and if you really want to stress test your memory just boot > Linux with root file system mounted over NFS and compile a Linux > kernel on the target. No smiley here, I really mean it. Yes, but that would take days, if at all possible, on my 133 Mhz PPC405EP with 32 megs. Then, I would rather have a "similar" memory exhausting test-application for Linux... BR, Martin Egholm