- Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:25 am
#25987
I'm using a Saxo-L from fpga4fun. I want to get an idea of the JTAG speed I can get with this thing. The board has an integrated JTAG over USB connection that works with OpenOCD.
The experiment:
1. First I use the "load_binary" command in RAM (loads a 64KB file in 6.3s).
2. Now I tried to program the file into flash with "dcc_downloads" disabled. It takes 13s for a 100KB file.
3. Now I enable "dcc_downloads". Flashing takes 8.5s, which is faster than RAM!?!
The questions:
1. Is there overhead with the load_binary command? Why is Flash programming sometimes faster than RAM access?
2. How can I verify that the flash programming succeeded? I found that I can use the "dump_binary" command to save the flash into a file and then use a file binary compare on the PC. But is there an easier way?
3. When "dcc_downloads" is enabled, OpenOCD reports errors like "Warning: value captured during scan didn't pass the requested check: captured: 0x09 check_value: 0x01 check_mask: 0x0f". Is that a known bug or possibly a problem with Saxo JTAG stack?
The experiment:
1. First I use the "load_binary" command in RAM (loads a 64KB file in 6.3s).
2. Now I tried to program the file into flash with "dcc_downloads" disabled. It takes 13s for a 100KB file.
3. Now I enable "dcc_downloads". Flashing takes 8.5s, which is faster than RAM!?!
The questions:
1. Is there overhead with the load_binary command? Why is Flash programming sometimes faster than RAM access?
2. How can I verify that the flash programming succeeded? I found that I can use the "dump_binary" command to save the flash into a file and then use a file binary compare on the PC. But is there an easier way?
3. When "dcc_downloads" is enabled, OpenOCD reports errors like "Warning: value captured during scan didn't pass the requested check: captured: 0x09 check_value: 0x01 check_mask: 0x0f". Is that a known bug or possibly a problem with Saxo JTAG stack?