From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.185]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80A9E015A9 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail191-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.230) by CO1EHSOBE026.bigfish.com (10.243.66.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:44 +0000 Received: from mail191-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail191-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252E8B4026B; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:70.37.183.190; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.freescale.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -4 X-BigFish: VS-4(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz186068h8275dh1de097hz2dh2a8h839h947hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h1765h18e1h190ch1946h19b4h19c3h1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1f5fh1fe8h1ff5h209eh1155h) Received: from mail191-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail191-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1377777102557311_25507; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.227]) by mail191-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8490318004D; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.freescale.net (70.37.183.190) by CO1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (10.243.66.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:41 +0000 Received: from az84smr01.freescale.net (10.64.34.197) by 039-SN1MMR1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net (10.84.1.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:40 +0000 Received: from [10.29.244.63] ([10.29.244.63]) by az84smr01.freescale.net (8.14.3/8.14.0) with ESMTP id r7TBpaYv008554; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:51:39 -0700 Message-ID: <521F34EC.2070109@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:47:56 -0300 From: Daiane Angolini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Belloni References: <521E28B7.7040105@freescale.com> <521E3159.7010908@freescale.com> <20130828200037.48571a17@e6520eb> <521E4189.9060005@freescale.com> <20130828222721.07cd5727@e6520eb> <521EFFE7.8020304@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: <521EFFE7.8020304@free-electrons.com> X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:51:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/29/2013 05:01 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > Hi, > > On 28/08/2013 22:27, Eric B=E9nard wrote: >> >> on the GPU point of view no. >> >> I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the >> softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life >> benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in >> meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms. > > I'm not sure we can actually find real life benchmarks, it always > depends on how intensive are the floating point operation compared to > the rest of the system. > > Also, I remember seeing that the difference between softfp and hardfp i= s > not as big on cortex-a9 as on cortex-a8. Actually, softfp is already > using the VFP but using the soft ABI. Then, it has to copy values from > integer registers to float registers and that is the overhead. This > overhead is lower on cortex-a9 because the vfp is pipelined, this was > not the case on cortex -a8. > > You can find interesting benchs here: > > https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks > https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks201205 sweet > > --=20 Daiane