Andy Green wrote: > The only problem with bitbang outside the API is that > it's unlikely to chime with the upstream way.
How does the performance of "bitbang all the way" compare to using a workqueue ? Also, do you know what maximum SCLK the a11r (*) supports ? I haven't been able to find this information in the data sheet :-( (*) "a11r" = "accellerometer", like "i18n" = "internationalization" > I don't think it's realistic to throw half the hardware off a cliff as a > solution. Well, doesn't everybody pretty much agree that the second a11r is useless ? So if we can make things simpler and more efficient by just not using it, why shouldn't we ? We're not using all the fancy coprocessors in the Glamo either, even though we could ;-) Before thinking about great optimizations, we should have a clear idea what best-case performance we can expect, and where the real bottlenecks are. If DIY bitbang beats a workqueue by a large margin, then that's a strong case in favour of the former. If not, we should just use the SPI subsystem the way it's meant to be. - Werner
