MitchAlsup wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the only purpose of the refresh circuitry is to avoid the
>> memory dropping bits, it should already be running at the slowest
>> possible rate, and speed reduction will be harmful, while speed
>> increase will do no good. So this is not a good idea.
>
> I disagree (softly), having designed several memory controllers,
> I always found it easier to just insert a READ DATA command into
> the DRAM when a refresh was needed, rather than insert a refresh
> command. The timing differences between refresh and a loosly
> coupled string of READS is such that one can refresh ahead with
> READs easier and then be in a position to absorb a longer string
> of demand requests by not using the REFRESH commands. Thus while
> running at the slowest overall rate, one can bunch and distribute
> the refresh mechanics to better interleave same with the demand
> memory requests and gain something.
>
> But I will state the overall performance differences are a
> fraction of the refresh overhead anyways.
>
>> What are you trying to do?
>
> That is the real question.

Since the OP seems to have disappeared to wherever OPs go, I
suspect we will never find out.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com