From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Z6umj-0001Gr-T2 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:00:47 +0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:00:22 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20150622060022.GC6325@pengutronix.de> References: <20150615011343.40eddc832febd97ade569cbb@gmail.com> <20150617092857.GJ6325@pengutronix.de> <20150620140912.b8435aff9de4a645f5d4639e@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150620140912.b8435aff9de4a645f5d4639e@gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: barebox picotcp integration (2015.06.14) To: Antony Pavlov Cc: barebox On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 02:09:12PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:28:57 +0200 > Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:13:43AM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > I have just published latest picotcp-enabled barebox. > > > Please see my 20150614.picotcp branch in my github barebox repo > > > (https://github.com/frantony/barebox/tree/20150614.picotcp). > > > > ... > > > > Why are you using the picotcp tftp implementation? picotcp surely > > supports sending/receiving udp packets, right? Wouldn't it be a good > > first step to replace the barebox udp API with the one picotcp provides? > > I mean I would expect that you replace only the network stack, not the > > network stack including the applications. If at some point we decide > > that the tftp implementation in picotcp is better than the one in > > barebox that would be the time to switch it. > > > > I have reworked tftp support: now barebox tftp implementation is used on top > of picotcp udp/ip stack and works 2 times slower than original u-boot stack-based > implementation (I have tested it with sandbox arch). Do you have an idea why this is slower? I had a quick look into it and found nothing obvious. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox