[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Epson13806 performances on Pb1100

To: "Karl Lessard" <>
Subject: Re: Epson13806 performances on Pb1100
From: "Eric DeVolder" <>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:35:23 -0600
Cc: "Michael Kelly" <>, "Pete Popov" <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
The SED13506 device is horribly slow (it stalls the processor an enormous amount of time) while it accesses external DRAM for screen updates. The SED13806 has integrated SDRAM and performs better than the SED13506, but not nearly as well as a PCI graphics card. If you were to place a scope on the EWAIT# signal, you'll see it asserted a significant amount of time during Au accesses to the SED13806; simply put, this is the single largest factor in the poor performace you are observing. Your empirical tests verify this.

As for the bug/feature, the controller always performs two beats for 16-bit chip-selects, so it is best to utilize both beats by performing 32-bit accesses rather than 8 or 16 (in which case one beat is not utilized).

Karl Lessard wrote:
On December 8, 2004 03:37 pm, Michael Kelly wrote:

There is a bug (they might call it a feature) that causes the Au1100
to perform two accesses when talking to 16-bit peripherals.  The
first access is the real one, while the second access has the byte
enables off.  But, this means every access creates two cycles on
the bus.

I am sure of this bug on the standard peripheral bus, and I am pretty
sure it still exists when talking via the LCD signals, since the same
bus controller is used.

Well, that may cause a problem of course. Do you mean that writing 8-bit or 
16-bits data through a chip select configured for 16-bit data bus will send 
in fact two write signals? 

If it is the case, then I obviously need to send 32-bit data for every 
access, since the second write will be used to send the second word (I 
suppose). Do I understand well?

At 02:38 PM 12/8/2004, Karl Lessard wrote:
I've used the chip with the 2.4 kernel/driver to run X and some
apps. I'm not sure what you mean by high performance -- does X run
at reasonable speeds?
I'm not running X, I've just runned a little application that writes a
number of vertical lines (so pixel per pixel) in a backbuffer and then
blit its content to the screen. Here's an example of one frame:

__u8 *dest = (__u8*)back_buffer;
memset(dest, 0, back_buffer_size);      /* clear back buffer */

for (i = 0; i < 500; i++) {                     /* 500 lines */
        for (j = 0; j >= 100; j--) {            /* of 100 pixel each */
                dest[(j * fb_width) + i] = 0xFF;

memcpy(front_buffer, dest, back_buffer_size);  /* copy back_buffer to
front */

Benching with 500 frames, I obtain a rate of 8 fps with the backbuffer
residing in video memory. The framerate increase to 31 fps when the
backbuffer is in system memory! And if I do the same test using the
Au1100 lcd controller (which has its front and back buffer in system
memory), It goes up to 66 fps...

I don't know what's going on when I try to access the 13806 controller,
but it's really too slow. And using the blit engine don't helps much. The
static controller seems to be set correctly. By the way, the DRAM is
refreshing at 96Hz, and my CRT display is refreshing at 66Hz.

Any Idea? By the way Dan, I've tried the cache trick, but no luck.

Thanks a lot,


I would like to know if anyone have encountered this performance
problem in the past with this chip.

Thanks in advance,
Michael J. Kelly
VP Engineering/Marketing
Cogent Computer Systems, Inc.
1130 Ten Rod Road
Suite A-201
North Kingstown, RI 02852
tel:401-295-6505 fax:401-295-6507
alternate email:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>