On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Emmanuel Blot <eblot...@gmail.com> wrote: > As our code can run with both pyftdi/libftdi/libusb (Py/C/C) or > pyftdi/pyusb/libusb (Py/Py/C), we have profiled the code and > observed that the stack based on the native libftdi librarie performs > far better than the one based on the pyusb stack. It was quite > surprising to see a huge difference between both stack, as libftdi > really is a thin wrapper on top of libusb. >
pyftdi here? https://github.com/eblot/pyftdi libftdi has its own Python binding as well. What is the main difference of your pyftdi? And take note there is this libftdi-1.0 which should have better performance than libftdi-0.18 because of the use of libusb-1.0 async API. urjtag project has proved that the performance gain can be quite significant. libftdi-1.0 is API compatible with libftdi-0.18 so you can try your pyftdi/libftdi/libusb without any changes. http://developer.intra2net.com/git/?p=libftdi-1.0 > Replacing the interface index (an integer) with a core.Interface > object shows a tremendous improvement of the average > transmission time, with final performances very close to the > native C implementation of the libftdi library. It would be interesting if you switch to libftdi-1.0 and then compare the performance. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ pyusb-users mailing list pyusb-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyusb-users
