On Friday 18 December 2015 11:37 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 17.12.2015 17:44, Jagan Teki wrote:
>> On 17 December 2015 at 13:26, Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 17 December 2015 12:43 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>> On 17 December 2015 at 12:33, Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Jagan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 27 October 2015 07:24 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds time measurement and throughput calculation for
>>>>>> sf read/write commands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The output of sf read changes from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---8<---
>>>>>> SF: 4096 bytes @ 0x0 Read: OK
>>>>>> --->8---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---8<---
>>>>>> SF: 4096 bytes @ 0x0 Read: OK in 6 ms (666 KiB/s)
>>>>>> --->8---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> Was it similar to 'sf update' ? please check it once.
>>>>
>>>
>>> sf update out similar but also uses progressive output, in read/write
>>> case it can't be done. The final throughput measurement is similar on
>>> both update and read/write.
>>
>> True, that's what if we need a progressed throughput just use 'sf
>> update' else normal 'sf read/write' It's look not good to me to add
>> extra code on top of generic commands. What ever we wanted to extend
>> features let's added it on 'sf update' than sf read/write, Sorry.
>
> If I need to measure the time of commands, I use the "time"
> command ("time sf write ...") by enabling it via CONFIG_CMD_TIME.
> This provides all the needed information to detect performance
> changes.
>
But similar kind of implementations is present for fatload and tftp. So
I thought having similar performance log for sf read/write will be good
as well.
Regards
Mugunthan V N
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
