Xiaofan == Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com writes:
Xiaofan On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Bonnes
...
Xiaofan future but the change may require quite a bit of work. Now that
Xiaofan both you (the current main driver of libftdi-1.0 and developer
Xiaofan of xc3sprog) and Jie
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Uwe Bonnes
b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
B.t.w. a question to those working with WinUSB:
Is it possible to map the calls to winusb.dll to libusb at all? How much
work will be involved? The reason why I ask: If we can map all calls to
winusb
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
I did some tests for libftdi-1.0 last time and it did not
offer any speed improvement for OpenOCD since OpenOCD
has not taken the advantage of the libftdi-1.0 async API.
Yes, I also don't expect speed advantages without
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
The above is
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
For the USB 2.0 Jtagkey2, using the WHQL driver and ftd2xx is
only about 5% faster than using libftdi and libusb-win32 filter driver
on top of the WHQL driver.
jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.826 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 11.296
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I did similar test under Windows with libftdi-0.19 (with
Liminary's FTDI driver
and libusb-win32 filter driver). The speed is faster than under Linux. Kind of
interesting. I will try the ftd2xx Windows build later.
On 2011-07-15 10:29, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Interestingly increasing the jtag_khz value does not help too much.
This is with a different PC and with Freddie Chopin's binary but the
result is similar.
Most probably you reached the limit with flash programming. To test just
the throughput you
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaofanc at gmail.com
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote:
/ Under Linux, ftd2xx 1.04 (based on libusb-1.0.8) does not seem to offer
// any advantage than libftdi (tested with 0.19)
/
This is the same as reported
Hi Laurent,
Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
windows, and with the Amontec JTAGkey D2XX device driver package WHQL
certified .
I would also like to have Amontec JTAGkey-2 and test the speed
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Freddie Chopin freddie_cho...@op.pl wrote:
On 2011-07-15 10:29, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Interestingly increasing the jtag_khz value does not help too much.
This is with a different PC and with Freddie Chopin's binary but the
result is similar.
Most probably you
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
laurent.ga...@amontec.com wrote:
Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
Yes.
If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
windows, and with the Amontec JTAGkey D2XX device driver package WHQL
certified
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
laurent.ga...@amontec.com wrote:
Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
Yes.
If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
laurent.ga...@amontec.com wrote:
Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
Yes.
If
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Laurent Gauch
laurent.ga...@amontec.com wrote:
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
I think Freddie is probably right. There is still a bit of speed bump
compared to the
on-board ftdi2232C based Luminary-ICDI interface.
jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.820 KiB/s versus 11.016 KiB/s
Historical reference back in June 2009.
Under Linux, Dominic found no much difference between libftdi and ftd2xx.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008846.html
My test results support this conclusion under Linux.
Under Windows, Freddie found that ftd2xx is
On Jul 15, 2011 3:39 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Historical reference back in June 2009.
Under Linux, Dominic found no much difference between libftdi and ftd2xx.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008846.html
My test results support this
Spencer == Spencer Oliver s...@spen-soft.co.uk writes:
Spencer On Jul 15, 2011 3:39 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com
Spencer wrote:
...
Spencer On some PC's I even found speed increase when running the jtag
Spencer dongle through an external powered USB hub.
This happend with
hello,
a short view into jtag/drivers/ft2232.c shows, that the asynchronous api of
libftdi-1 is not used. ftd2xx however uses a second thread to continous poll
the FTDI chip for data to read. So on ft2232_read(), ftd2xx can start to
deliver data, while the libftdi patch has to first send the read
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Bonnes
b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
hello,
a short view into jtag/drivers/ft2232.c shows, that the asynchronous api of
libftdi-1 is not used. ftd2xx however uses a second thread to continous poll
the FTDI chip for data to read. So on
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Freddie is probably right. There is still a bit of speed bump
compared to the
on-board ftdi2232C based Luminary-ICDI interface.
jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.820 KiB/s versus 11.016 KiB/s
jtag_khz = max supported,
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Historical reference back in June 2009.
Under Windows, Freddie found that ftd2xx is significantly faster
than libftdi. I will try to use LPC-P2148 to see if that is still
the case now.
Many thanks for making these tests! Awesome!
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
So in conclusion there is almost no difference in performance between
OpenOCD using libftdi-0.19
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
The above is for Amontec JtagKey2 which is high speed USB.
The J-Link under OpenOCD (full
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Many thanks for making these tests! Awesome!
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
So in conclusion there is
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
Under Linux, ftd2xx 1.04 (based on libusb-1.0.8) does not seem to offer
any advantage than libftdi (tested with 0.19)
This is the same as reported last time.
mcuee@Ubuntu:~/Desktop/build/openocd/lm3s1968$ openocd-d2xx -f
25 matches
Mail list logo
