On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:28:57 +0200 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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). Please see draft tftp commit here: https://github.com/frantony/barebox/tree/20150620.picotcp I'll try to switch barebox nfs support to picotcp udp/ip in several days. -- Best regards, Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
