|  11:32  |  cbxbiker61  |   jnettlet, rabeeh, any word on the imx6 plus chips yet?  | 
|  11:36  |  jnettlet  |   cbxbiker61, still working on stabilizing the first sample.  The kernel is done but still sorting through u-boot  | 
|  11:37  |  cbxbiker61  |   sounds good, it looks like the microsom will be the only thing that has to change?  | 
|  11:37  |  jnettlet  |   well the power consumption/thermal footprint a bit.  The die is about 20% larger  | 
|  11:37  |  jnettlet  |   but the some is a snap in replacement, and a u-boot/kernel upgrade  | 
|  11:39  |  jnettlet  |   right now I am trying to sort out memcpy in glibc.  They merged a version optimized for the Cortex-A15 and I found that on the A9 you get 50-100% performance degradation on memcpy's greater than 22KB  | 
|  11:40  |  jnettlet  |   performance starts dropping after 16KB, but 22KB is where a straight neon memcpy outperforms glibc  | 
|  11:40  |  mk01  |   jnettlet: hopefully not 100% ;-)  | 
|  11:40  |  jnettlet  |   sorry, I was processing my numbers backwards  | 
|  11:41  |  jnettlet  |   I have been on conference calls for hours and my mind is jello'd  | 
|  11:41  |  mk01  |   sure... just kidding a bit  | 
|  11:42  |  jnettlet  |   at peak performance glibc's memcpy good up until 22K.  With it hitting maximum performance at 8KB  | 
|  11:44  |  cbxbiker61  |   jnettlet, does that affect glibc 2.22 or just the git version?  | 
|  11:45  |  mk01  |   perhaps a stupid Q, but couldn't one choose an implementation based on the actual memcpy size_t param ?  | 
|  11:49  |  cbxbiker61  |   i think you'd want to select the implementation like it's done in x86/glibc, which handles it quite automatically  | 
|  12:01  |  jnettlet  |   cbxbiker61, all new glibc's for a while  | 
|  12:01  |  jnettlet  |   mk01, it already does that  | 
|  12:01  |  mk01  |   ah ok  | 
|  12:03  |  cbxbiker61  |   jnettlet, i'd like a patch for 2.22 if you don't mind.  I'd like to roll it in here.  | 
|  12:37  |  jnettlet  |   cbxbiker61, certainly  | 
|  12:38  |  jnettlet  |   mk01, generally the split is for much smaller transfers, less than 16 or 64 bits/bytes  | 
|  12:38  |  jnettlet  |   the slowdown I am seeing is at the KB size  | 
|  12:38  |  jnettlet  |   sorry about the delay was in another CC  | 
|  12:41  |  mk01  |   jnettlet: so back to the original Q then - 2x32k memcpy's would perform like one 64k memcpy or not ?  | 
|  12:42  |  mk01  |   ((on continuos 64k block in that case))  | 
|  12:44  |  jnettlet  |   well they would hit the same copy path  | 
|  12:44  |  jnettlet  |   but they would behave differently because they would be parallel copies  | 
|  12:44  |  jnettlet  |   I haven't tested parallel performance  | 
|  12:45  |  jnettlet  |   I guess I can run the benchmark two times in a row and see what happens.  | 
|  12:49  |  jnettlet  |   mk01, parallel performance sees a small drop but is still much faster than the default glibc  | 
|  12:53  |  mk01  |   jnettlet: the "perfect alignment case" means page aligned ?  | 
|  12:55  |  jnettlet  |   mk01, nope 64 byte alignment  | 
|  12:56  |  jnettlet  |   so page align would work, but you only need 64 bytes alignment.  just like mmdcprof shows the Cortex-A9 really likes things in 64-byte chunks  | 
|  13:01  |  mk01  |   understand  | 
|  13:08  |  mk01  |   what would happen if we play with the bank alignment bits in galcore ?  | 
|  13:10  |  mk01  |   too much wasted memory ?  | 
|  13:12  |  mk01  |   ((that was parallel thought - sure doesn't help with glibc problem))  | 
|  13:13  |  jnettlet  |   mk01, Freescale already tweaks things to what I guess is optimal.  Although I haven't verified if that is true.  | 
|  13:13  |  jnettlet  |   I think if I can get this sorted out we will see what a difference it makes.  | 
|  13:14  |  jnettlet  |   600MB/s is a lot of memory bandwidth for this board.  | 
|  13:17  |  mk01  |   looking at the numbers again - there are practically two issues open, right ? (one is the block size issue, second the glibc implementation itself (lacking behind neon/bionic)).  | 
|  16:02  |  vko  |   Hello! does anyone managed to bring up wifi on microsom module? I have microsom i1 with sdio broadcom wifi onboard. Kernel (3.14.14) and rootfs are build from sources. After I issue modprobe b43 I see  | 
|  16:02  |  vko  |   "Broadcom 43xx driver loaded [ Features: PMNLS ]".  | 
|  16:02  |  vko  |   But I dont see wlan interface present. The broadcom firmware (brcmfmac4330-sdio.bin) is present in /lib/firmware/brcm.  | 
|  16:05  |  mk01  |   vko: the module is brcmfmac  | 
|  16:11  |  vko  |   mk01: Thanks,  I tried brcmfmac also. The output was a bit different:  | 
|  16:11  |  vko  |   [ 1148.656013] brcmfmac: brcmf_sdio_htclk: HT Avail timeout (1000000): clkctl 0x50  | 
|  16:11  |  vko  |   [ 1149.672013] brcmfmac: brcmf_sdio_htclk: HT Avail timeout (1000000): clkctl 0x50  | 
|  16:11  |  vko  |   And no effect also.  | 
|  16:13  |  mk01  |   vko: there needs to be usdhc1 allowed in DT including sdio clock  | 
|  16:13  |  vko  |   mk01: don't you who should load the firmware? Driver itself or me with some hotplug?  | 
|  16:13  |  mk01  |   driver itself  | 
|  16:14  |  mk01  |   [   14.168815] brcmfmac: brcmf_sdio_drivestrengthinit: No SDIO Drive strength init done for chip 4329 rev 3 pmurev 6  | 
|  16:14  |  mk01  |   [   14.384005] brcmfmac: brcmf_c_preinit_dcmds: Firmware version = wl0: Sep  2 2011 14:48:19 version 4.220.48  | 
|  16:14  |  mk01  |   [   14.411015] brcmfmac: brcmf_fws_init: failed to set bdcv2 tlv signaling  | 
|  16:14  |  mk01  |   [   14.424121] brcmfmac: brcmf_setup_wiphybands: rxchain error (-52)  | 
|  16:14  |  mk01  |   [   14.435618] brcmfmac: brcmf_cfg80211_reg_notifier: not a ISO3166 code  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   and this is the sdio part  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.680661] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2194000.usdhc: Got CD GPIO  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.681120] sdhci-esdhc-imx 2194000.usdhc: No vqmmc regulator found  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.714176] mmc0: queuing unknown CIS tuple 0x80 (50 bytes)  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.722962] mmc0: queuing unknown CIS tuple 0x80 (7 bytes)  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.725074] mmc0: queuing unknown CIS tuple 0x80 (4 bytes)  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.755138] mmc0: queuing unknown CIS tuple 0x02 (1 bytes)  | 
|  16:15  |  mk01  |   [    1.764255] mmc0: new SDIO card at address 0001  | 
|  16:16  |  mk01  |   in firmware/brcm do you also have the .txt files ?  | 
|  16:18  |  vko  |   mko1: no, .bin  | 
|  16:20  |  mk01  |   http://paste.debian.net/348999/  | 
|  16:21  |  vko  |   usdh1 seems to be enabled: status = "okay"  | 
|  16:25  |  vko  |   mk01: sorry, it's not clear for me what it is:) kind of firmware config file?  | 
|  16:28  |  mk01  |   vko: it is NVRAM  | 
|  16:28  |  mk01  |   both files (bin, txt) needs to be there (firmware/brcm)  | 
|  16:30  |  vko  |   mk01: ok, thanks. The name should be brcmfmac4330-sdio.txt?  | 
|  16:31  |  mk01  |   same as .bin, yes  | 
|  16:31  |  mk01  |   (just extension is .txt)  | 
|  16:32  |  bencoh  |   (but not the same content ;)  | 
|  16:46  |  vko  |   mk01: thanks, it works! I can scan SSIDs.  | 
|  16:48  |  mk01  |   vko: welcome  | 
|  17:14  |  jnettlet  |   vko, I would highly recommend you switch to the linux-fslc repository.  | 
|  17:14  |  jnettlet  |   really the simplest method for testing is to use our debian jessie images.  |