On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> For the USB 2.0 Jtagkey2, using the WHQL driver and ftd2xx is
>> only about 5% faster than using libftdi and libusb-win32 filter driver
>> on top of the WHQL driver.
>>
>> jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.826 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 11.296 KiB/s
>> (lib
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
>> jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
>>
>
> The above is for Amontec JtagKey2 which is
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> I did some tests for libftdi-1.0 last time and it did not
>> offer any speed improvement for OpenOCD since OpenOCD
>> has not taken the advantage of the libftdi-1.0 async API.
>
> Yes, I also don't expect speed advantages without rewrite, but
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Uwe Bonnes
wrote:
> B.t.w. a question to those working with WinUSB:
>
> Is it possible to map the calls to winusb.dll to libusb at all? How much
> work will be involved? The reason why I ask: If we can map all calls to
> winusb to libusb, a replacement dll can be w
> "Xiaofan" == Xiaofan Chen writes:
Xiaofan> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Bonnes
...
Xiaofan> future but the change may require quite a bit of work. Now that
Xiaofan> both you (the current main driver of libftdi-1.0 and developer
Xiaofan> of xc3sprog) and Jie Zhang (o
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
> > jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
>
> The above is for Amontec JtagKey2 which is high speed USB.
>
> The J-Link under OpenOCD (full speed USB but with intelligence
> in it)
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Many thanks for making these tests! Awesome!
>
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
>> jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
>
> So in conclusion there is almost n
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
> jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
>
The above is for Amontec JtagKey2 which is high speed USB.
The J-Link under OpenOCD (full speed USB but w
Many thanks for making these tests! Awesome!
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Actually the result is pretty close for the LPC-P2148 based test.
> jtag_khz = 1500 KHz, 38.927 KiB/s (ftd2xx) versus 38.754 KiB/s.
So in conclusion there is almost no difference in performance between
OpenOCD using libftdi-0.19 a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Historical reference back in June 2009.
> Under Windows, Freddie found that ftd2xx is significantly faster
> than libftdi. I will try to use LPC-P2148 to see if that is still
> the case now.
>
> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-deve
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> I think Freddie is probably right. There is still a bit of speed bump
>> compared to the
>> on-board ftdi2232C based Luminary-ICDI interface.
>>
>> jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.820 KiB/s versus 11.016 KiB/s
>> jtag_khz = max supported, 12.729 Ki
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Bonnes
wrote:
> hello,
>
> a short view into jtag/drivers/ft2232.c shows, that the asynchronous api of
> libftdi-1 is not used. ftd2xx however uses a second thread to continous poll
> the FTDI chip for data to read. So on ft2232_read(), ftd2xx can start to
> d
hello,
a short view into jtag/drivers/ft2232.c shows, that the asynchronous api of
libftdi-1 is not used. ftd2xx however uses a second thread to continous poll
the FTDI chip for data to read. So on ft2232_read(), ftd2xx can start to
deliver data, while the libftdi patch has to first send the read
> "Spencer" == Spencer Oliver writes:
Spencer> On Jul 15, 2011 3:39 PM, "Xiaofan Chen"
Spencer> wrote:
...
Spencer> On some PC's I even found speed increase when running the jtag
Spencer> dongle through an external powered USB hub.
This happend with the older devices without
On Jul 15, 2011 3:39 PM, "Xiaofan Chen" wrote:
>
> Historical reference back in June 2009.
>
> Under Linux, Dominic found no much difference between libftdi and ftd2xx.
>
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008846.html
>
> My test results support this conclusion under
Historical reference back in June 2009.
Under Linux, Dominic found no much difference between libftdi and ftd2xx.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008846.html
My test results support this conclusion under Linux.
Under Windows, Freddie found that ftd2xx is signific
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Laurent Gauch
wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> I think Freddie is probably right. There is still a bit of speed bump
>>> compared to the
>>> on-board ftdi2232C based Luminary-ICDI interface.
>>>
>>> jtag_khz = 1200 KHz, 11.820 KiB/s versus 11.016 KiB/s
>>> jtag_k
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
>> wrote:
>>> Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
> wrote:
>> Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
>> windows, and with the Amontec JTAGkey
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Gauch
wrote:
> Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
Yes.
> If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
> windows, and with the Amontec JTAGkey D2XX device driver package WHQL
> certified .
No problem. I will
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> On 2011-07-15 10:29, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly increasing the jtag_khz value does not help too much.
>> This is with a different PC and with Freddie Chopin's binary but the
>> result is similar.
>
> Most probably you reached th
Hi Laurent,
> Do you have a Amontec JTAGkey-2 (High-speed USB 2.0) ?
>
> If yes, please do the same comparaison with libusb and d2xx on Linux and
> windows, and with the Amontec JTAGkey D2XX device driver package WHQL
> certified .
I would also like to have Amontec JTAGkey-2 and test the speed
co
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development>> wrote:
>/ Under Linux, ftd2xx 1.04 (based on libusb-1.0.8) does not seem to offer
/>/ any advantage than libftdi (tested with 0.19)
/
This is the same as reported last time.
>/ mcuee at
On 2011-07-15 10:29, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Interestingly increasing the jtag_khz value does not help too much.
This is with a different PC and with Freddie Chopin's binary but the
result is similar.
Most probably you reached the limit with flash programming. To test just
the throughput you could
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Then I did similar test under Windows with libftdi-0.19 (with
> Liminary's FTDI driver
> and libusb-win32 filter driver). The speed is faster than under Linux. Kind of
> interesting. I will try the ftd2xx Windows build later.
>
> D:\work\open
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Under Linux, ftd2xx 1.04 (based on libusb-1.0.8) does not seem to offer
> any advantage than libftdi (tested with 0.19)
This is the same as reported last time.
> mcuee@Ubuntu:~/Desktop/build/openocd/lm3s1968$ openocd-d2xx -f
> board/ek-lm3s
26 matches
Mail list logo
