Hi Glen,

I just verified, the cycle counts for true 16Mhz are within 1% of the 
8Mhz operations (but measurements now take half as long :-) )

Danilo


Am 18.09.2016 um 07:15 schrieb glen english:
> Hi
> OK.
> well, anyway, decode 1200 (40mS) takes  12.34mS on my kit, and 19.86
> using kiss-fft.
> I think you approximated about 14.4mS for a decode 1300 on your kit
>
> so, I will be interested to see what you come up with using cfft
>
> My codec 2 codebase is AUGUST 2015
>
> cheers
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18/09/2016 2:58 PM, Danilo Beuche wrote:
>> Hi Glen, I would not worry to much:
>>
>> - Maybe gcc 5.4 vs 4.9: difference is ~-20% (depending from which end
>> you are looking).  It is a lot but not unexplainable.
>>
>> - Maybe it is my test data. I don't know how much jitter in the kiss_fft
>> algorithm is, when different data is presented. I am running
>> "artificially" generated audio input (digitally captured codec2 frames
>> from a single 750Hz sine way also generated digitally).-
>>
>> - Maybe it is my strange way of running the mcHF firmware: the mcHF
>> Hardware has a 16Mhz XO,  but the discovery board which I have here for
>> testing has a 8Mhz XO. I didn't bother to reconfigure the PLL. So
>> everything takes twice the time. If the flash would asynchronously
>> coupled, which I doubt (otherwise no need for explicit wait state
>> settings),  it would have an influence.  But here I am quite sure, this
>> is not the case. If the caches are asynchronous: Maybe. Maybe I should
>> remeasure with fixed PLL setup so that the processor runs at true
>> 168Mhz. Will do that later and get back with updated numbers.
>>
>> Danilo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18.09.2016 06:35, glen english wrote:
>>> Using environment Rowley CrossStudio for ARM 3.6.4 . GCC 4.9
>>>
>>> using cycle counter (yes)
>>>
>>> interrupt overhead : (irrelevant, most likely in my setup) (asm) irqs
>>> only set off flags...
>>>
>>> for kissfft 5ws F4, I wonder why you have 112500 cycles and I have
>>> 141000. Something for me to look at .
>>>
>>> hmm
>>>
>>> -O2 but I also have a bunch of debug symbol stuff in there dunno I think
>>> it is only symbol data at DB2 which pushes up the image size.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
>>> Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
>> Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
> Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2

Reply via email to