From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:44:04 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] at91: change CONFIG_SYS_HZ to 1000 In-Reply-To: <49D62153.4090505@vollmann.ch> References: <1235527085-23900-1-git-send-email-dv@vollmann.ch> <49D50DDC.2000001@free.fr> <20090402190616.GJ2651@game.jcrosoft.org> <49D60BED.3080009@vollmann.ch> <49D60D0D.8000209@free.fr> <20090403132127.GE14955@game.jcrosoft.org> <49D62153.4090505@vollmann.ch> Message-ID: <20090403144404.GA21480@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 16:46 Fri 03 Apr , Detlef Vollmann wrote: > Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> On 15:20 Fri 03 Apr , Eric BENARD wrote: >>> Detlef Vollmann a ?crit : >>>> Where can I find that patch? >>>> >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/56837 > Thanks. > >>> Is it interesting to loose time calculating PLL values at each boot when >>> these value can be defined in the board config file ? >> yes because you will not loose that much 1ms in the worse case >> but you will be sure about it evenif you change it in the at91bootstrap change >> or the lowlevel_init. It's safer > I probably agree. (Well, not completely, as I'd like to get rid > of at91bootstrap completely and let U-Boot be the original boot > code, but that's future.) I've a patch that I'll send tomorow that boot the at91sam9263ek from NOR without the AT91bootstrap > > Unfortunately that clock patch doesn't solve the timer issue, and > makes it even worse... > And I agree that it's not very useful to apply my old patch against > that. The point is that I don't know against which git repository > I should create any new patch. > I'd prefer to use git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git, but I'm willing to > use git://git.denx.de/u-boot-at91.git, but neither of those contain > the clock patch yet... I'll put in the clock branch Best Regards, J.