From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mugunthan V N Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:07:45 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: sf: add support for throughput mesurement of sf read/write In-Reply-To: <5673A2AA.60204@denx.de> References: <1445954063-29943-1-git-send-email-mugunthanvnm@ti.com> <56725E3C.7040609@ti.com> <56726ABC.3040307@ti.com> <5673A2AA.60204@denx.de> Message-ID: <56779029.3050804@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 wrote: >>> On Thursday 17 December 2015 12:43 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>> On 17 December 2015 at 12:33, Mugunthan V N >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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