[U-Boot] [PATCH-ARM] CONFIG_SYS_HZ fix for ARM902T S3C24X0 Boards

[Minkyu Kang]

Dear kevin.morfitt,

2009/9/8 kevin.morfitt at fearnside-systems.co.uk
<kevin.morfitt at fearnside-systems.co.uk>:
>
>
> On 07/09/2009 23:18, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear "kevin.morfitt at fearnside-systems.co.uk",
>>
>> In message <4AA583AC.3050401 at fearnside-systems.co.uk> you wrote:
>>>> In message <4AA284B9.8030009 at fearnside-systems.co.uk> you wrote:
>>>>> This sets CONFIG_SYS_HZ to 1000 for all boards that use the s3c2400 and
>>>>> s3c2410 cpu's which fixes various problems such as the timeouts in tftp being
>>>>> too short.
>>>> I still wonder if this is really an issue. Some s3c2400 based boards
>>>> have been in production use for several years, with volumes of many
>>>> thousands of devices per year. Yet no TFTP timeout issues have been
>>>> reported ever.
>> ...
>>> I think there were no problems because CONFIG_SYS_HZ was set to values that
>>> worked for each of the s3c24x0 boards. I only submitted the patch because my
>>
>> I'm confused - above you write "various problems such as the timeouts
>> in tftp being too short", now you write: "there were no problems".
>>
>> Which one is correct?
>>
>
> When I ported the SBC2440-II Board based on the existing sbc2410x code without
> applying this patch the tftp timeouts were too short. When I apply this patch as
> part of the SBC2440-II port the tftp timeouts are OK.
>
> I haven't got any other s3c24x0 boards so I don't know whether they do have tftp
> timeout problems or not, I only know that I saw them on my SBC2440-II port. My
> comment "there were no problems" was based on you saying "Yet no TFTP timeout
> issues have been reported ever".
>
> Best Regards
> Kevin Morfitt
>
>>> I'm happy to withdraw the patch if it's OK to set CONFIG_SYS_HZ to a different
>>> value than 1000?
>>
>> CONFIG_SYS_HZ is a constant with the value 1000. Board that use
>> different values shall be fixed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Wolfgang Denk
>>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4403 (20090907) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>

applied to u-boot-samsung

thanks
Minkyu Kang
-- 
from. prom.
www.promsoft.net