From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 22:04:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CD41065670 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:04:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from raven.bwct.de (raven.bwct.de [85.159.14.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6376B8FC12 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.cicely.de ([10.1.1.37]) by raven.bwct.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p23M4d7h005775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:04:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (cicely7.cicely.de [10.1.1.9]) by mail.cicely.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p23M4aAJ041093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:04:36 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p23M4aWa031403; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:04:36 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id p23M4ZlX031402; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:04:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:04:35 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Warner Losh Message-ID: <20110303220435.GP86812@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <201103030040.p230eBIt023558@freefall.freebsd.org> <4D6EE744.5050100@ansley.com> <4D6FF142.9020801@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6FF142.9020801@bsdimp.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely7.cicely.de 7.0-STABLE i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on spamd.cicely.de Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: arm/155214: [patch] MMC/SD IO slow on Atmel ARM with modern large SD cards X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:04:45 -0000 On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:51:30PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On 03/02/2011 17:56, Greg Ansley wrote: > >On 3/2/11 7:40 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: > >>The following reply was made to PR arm/155214; it has been noted by > >>GNATS. > >> > >>From: Ian Lepore > >>To: ticso@cicely.de > >>Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org > >>Subject: Re: arm/155214: [patch] MMC/SD IO slow on Atmel ARM with modern > >> large SD cards > >>Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:21:09 -0700 > >> I have not tested with 4-bit enabled; I wasn't aware (but in > >>retrospect > >> I probably should have assumed) that the hardware bugs are different > >> with 4-bit enabled. I'm not even sure our hardware design carries > >>all 4 > >> lines to the card; I'll look at the schematics and if they're > >>connected > >> I'll see about testing that mode. (And if they're not I'll see about > >> having our designers wire up all 4 lines on future designs.) > >> > >> I also haven't tested with the SAM9-series, because I don't have that > >> hardware available. (I hope to convince our hardware designers to > >> migrate us to SAM9 this year.) > >> > >With the current code (prepatch) 4bit mode is known to work at least > >on the SAM9G20 with kernel option AT91_MCI_HAS_4WIRE. I'll be working > >on the SAM9G20 in the next few days and I can test the patch on both a > >RM9200 (1 bit only) and on a couple of SAM9G20 designs with 4bit > >hardware. > > For some ancient history... > > The Atmel Linux repo went back and forth on the 4-bit support in > RM9200. When the SAM9260 was released, they added support there and > specifically disabled it for the RM9200. When I asked about it, they > muttered something about silicon bugs. After that, it ping ponged back > and forth between supported and not for a while. I honestly don't know > where it settled finally. Interesting. I'm not aware of 4-bit silicon bugs, but of course there are boards, which are 1-bit wired only. And I'm aware that you need 100k pullup or pulldown to the data wires, although my first prototype boards worked fine without them. I don't remember the reason for them. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.