> Now, I understand that > the extra > code in the procedure makes it slower, but there is a > reason for it.
the line if (!(pata_hd_last_sector + 1 == pata_hd_sector_select)) | (pata_hd_sector_count2 == 0) is a hard one. It uses 62 processor cycles. The call to pata_hd_go_to_sector takes roughly 200 cycles. So the check if you can omit the call takes substantial time itself. > Fat32 would not need to be on the PIC for MSD. It will not be needed. You can format your storage device in NTFS or reiser if you like, that's the job of the PC, not the job of the storage device. > I did not > get my USB > thing working due to lack of knowledge and lack of > assistance. I tried to keep away from USB till very recently... But I think I will have to give it a try soon... > Any comment on what we should do to keep it available for > USB MSD? > Should there be two read sector procedures? Well, if there's a reason for using method2, I would say, that is the one. It may be 10% slower than method1, but speed is not everything. The double-array part saves data space, code space and speeds up 300%. No drawbacks at all. Noone came forward and declared the advantages of large_array (of course there are, the double-array-method makes no sense at all except at a size of exactly 512 bytes. large_array is very flexible and undoubtly useful in many cases.) Don't let execution speed rule your coding style. And, as I said in another thread before, as long as some features still don't work to your content, it's to early to start optimizing. I did not stick to this rule as in this case large_array would have gotten harder and harder to throw it out again. Greets, Kiste -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
