On 07/09/2009 23:18, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear "kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk",
In message 4AA583AC.3050401@fearnside-systems.co.uk you wrote:
In message 4AA284B9.8030009@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.