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

Tue Sep 8 00:52:39 CEST 2009

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