Re[2]: [avrdude-dev] AVR910 Programming speed

[Bertolt Mildner]

Thursday, April 3, 2003, 6:39:20 PM, you wrote:

EW> On 3 Apr 2003 at 12:39, Bertolt Mildner wrote:

>> I just started playing around with a AVR910 Programmer and avrdude.
>> 
>> I'm very disapointed over the programming speed.
>> 
>> Writeing 5342 Bytes to a AT90S8515 gives me the
>> following times (erase, write, verify):
>> 
>> avrdude 3:30
>> AVR Studio 4 1:10
>> PonyProg2000 (SI-Prog hardware) 0:30
>> 
>> Are AVR910 programmers known to be slow in general?
>> Anyone got an idea why avrdude is 3 times slower that AVR Studio? Is
>> there any chance to get close to the 0:30 using a AVR910 programmer at
>> all?
>> 
>> 
>> My environment:
>> Win2000, P-III 550MHz
>> 
>> recent CVS snapshot build using Cygwin
>> command line is "avrdude -c avr910 -P COM2 -p 8515 -e -i test2.hex"
>> 
>> self built AVR910 programmer using firmware 2.2 or 2.3 from Atmel.
>> Both minimaly tweaked because I use a AT90S2313 (instead of the
>> AT90S1200) running at 4MHz.
>> 

EW> This is just a guess.

EW> The avr910 is a serial port based programmer. Currently avrdude does 
EW> all serial communications through POSIX calls, which for Windows, has 
EW> to go through the Cygwin layer (dll) before it gets to the Windows 
EW> OS. Perhaps this could be slowing it down?

Sorry, but I can't imagine how the POSIX wrapper could have such a
dramatic effect! But have to admit that I don't know the POSIX
interface to RS-232 nor do I know the Cygwin POSIX wrapper.

My guess would be that the POSIX wrapper adds perhaps some ms (more
likely only some us).

EW> Ted Roth recently split up and re-organized the serial communications 
EW> layer in avrdude so native Win32 calls can be used to handle the 
EW> serial comms. I have done *some* work on writing up the win32 serial 
EW> port stuff. However, it is not finished. I'm planning to get to it 
EW> within 1-2 weeks. If you are interested in finishing it before that 
EW> time let me know and we can coordinate.

Ok, I will try to have a look at it, can't promise anything.

What was the rational behind swiching to the Win32 API?

-- 
Best regards,
 Bertolt                            mailto:address@hidden