Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Michael Fischer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello List, >> >> I have tested the speed from 1606 with the patch from >> Magnus and the 1787 with a FT2232 under Windows. The >> target was a STR710 with external RAM. >> >> A very old speed table from r657 can be found here: >> http://www.yagarto.de/projects/jtagspeed/index.html#result >> >> Here the FT2232 had a speed in the past about 165KB/sec on a STR710 target. >> I have repeated the test again, here are the results: >> >> - 657: 164KB/sec >> - 1606: 148KB/sec >> - 1787: 149KB/sec >> >> This is a speed decrease from about 9% >> > > I.e. there is no difference between 1606 & 1787, which is good :-) > > Nicolas Pitre reported *huge* standard deviations > in performance. Are you seing any significant standard > deviation in performance? > > Also, I have no idea if somehow the speed decrease is due to > some *necessary* extra overhead in terms of extra operations > against the CPU between 657/1787. > > Interesting though. > > The difference between r657 and r1606 is worth checking. After r1606 and when the obvious bugs are fixed there should be no large performance difference.
Öywind has built a more or less functional equivalent of the old system. The number of function calls has probably increased a little, but this does not affect performance a lot. The new structure traces callback handles in a almost IDENTICAL way to the old one BUT it is a separate datastructure that can be INLINED and removed for synchrounous hosts. So we get a small, not measurable penalty for USB hosts and a potential improvement for synchronous hosts. Best regards Magnus _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
