On Tue 10 Jun 2014 17:15:23 steve tell wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > > The 2232 has two channels you can use! FYI this will probably be very > > slow... you may be better off just using Impact with the Digilent > > drivers... > > Is there a theoretical reason why urjtag should be slower than the xilinx > tool when both use the same interface? Or do we just have some work do do > on urjtag's efficiency?
without someone sniffing the USB traffic, it's hard to say where the problem lies. i could see traffic from urjtag getting split badly such that it generates extra USB packets while the xilinx guys have done a lot of work to make sure their packets are always aligned/split/etc... exactly for maximum performance. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list UrJTAG-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
