From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Fri Jan 15 09:34:38 2010 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9Z7iBniI6hFZIWVJdILzegmpxkfGpEV+lihGJtIsP70=; b=EQ1EJKctYsndj+CZhFg8dgrKdhHi9K1HQQHQFU2FkDgYOGsuG12c3O9Ci1zmir+hyf iWhoN8VvzkHo/5awI5AtAFZjFHSv3m4/CCeIdN8mfIic9IaHdxgo6T70xRWH49uz0s9m b2q9pE3IRLSuoSrdMe0ovKMwvvKKsl54d+NiM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Qb0ELI651uZmIsTGwF8VZIBVqd18r4UnWr7dvLtJywe++dEhtMNbftubEq/XmByN81 9wLGafzIYx5NW+uEDxeMNysarN73PnPD1cIzJhAi/ZIfT1+u21iRDKMwhjFR8Aj+fGqG w5tnZ9UVyfbPH3XYIST8BY1kFlV34ZAVCWyic= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0012bc96.01ad1d1cd68e@mail.gmx.net> References: <0012bc96.01ad1d1cd68e@mail.gmx.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:24:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MiNT] Daily freemint kernel builds From: Miro Kropacek To: Lars Schmidbauer Cc: mint@fishpool.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555642e639338047d34c3c7 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: miro.kropacek@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: --00032555642e639338047d34c3c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > And so i reduced the clock to 66 MHz...and everything works fine now! At 90 > MHz the error still occure. > But i really don't like this solution- can another SDRAM work better > (perhaps PC-133)?? > Which SDRAM (and CT60 clock) do you use? > This isn't necessarily SDRAM issue, it can be cache issue inside the CPU for example. As Alan said, this is how it is. Remember CT60 was projected / tested / developed for 66 MHz, everything above is just a bonus. You might want to try to play with higher values (some people have reported 75 MHz as their working frontier) but you know, better 100% working 66 MHz than maybe-something-silently-not-working XX MHz ;-) 66 MHz was widely accepted as standard setup, i.e. all demos/intros are optimized for 66 MHz anyway. -- MiKRO / Mystic Bytes http://mikro.atari.org --00032555642e639338047d34c3c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And so i reduced= the clock to 66 MHz...and everything works fine now! At 90 MHz the error s= till occure.
But i really don't like this solution- can another SDRAM work better (p= erhaps PC-133)??
Which SDRAM (and CT60 clock) do you use?
This isn'= t=A0necessarily=A0SDRAM issue, it can be cache issue inside the CPU for exa= mple. As Alan said, this is how it is. Remember CT60 was projected / tested= / developed for 66 MHz, everything above is just a bonus. You might want t= o try to play with higher values (some people have reported 75 MHz as their= working frontier) but you know, better 100% working 66 MHz than maybe-some= thing-silently-not-working XX MHz ;-) 66 MHz was widely accepted as standar= d setup, i.e. all demos/intros are optimized for 66 MHz anyway.

--
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org
--00032555642e639338047d34c3c7--