On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 02:09:12PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > 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). 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
