Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Read, understood, agreed.
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 20 Nov 2011 at 8:07
Three steps needed to be addressed:
1) only do write operations when [MENU] is pressed
2) accelerate these write operations which must be synchronous by avoiding the
interrupt mechanism
3) popup on screen
Today I commited 1) in trunk. As more testing is needed at this stage. I would
like to wait some feedback before commiting in frsky branch and going further
with 2) and 3)
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:15
I have a stock 9X back in my possession. Testing now ...
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 12:11
Testing completed. Many bugs exist I'm afraid. SO many that's it really not
worth trying to describe them all. I'm sure you'll see that moving and copying
sometimes crashes (WDT reset) and sometimes, somehow, locks up completely with
no watchdog reset.
The only reasonable clue I can give right now I think is that it seems to work
mostly OK if copying or moving to location right next to existing models. But
if I copy or move from, say, slot 1 to slot 10 or 14 (many gaps) then things
start going seriously wrong, most times.
One time I did successfully move to slot 16. But the write process took at
least four times longer than it should have. I mean, no key response for about
five seconds -- on just a simple 4-ch default model.
Is it not a simply matter of recording the source, destination file numbers and
the mode and then just using those three variables after [MENU] is pressed to
do the operation? I'd have thought that part was easy and only the actual
on-screen display manipulation was the new and tricky bit? (Sorry -- tried to
read the code but couldn't make any sense out of it (quickly.) I'm not often
very good at reading other people's C code and making sense of it in my head.)
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 1:00
Errors described above have been reproduced on a real TX and solved
To the steps described above, I will add this one:
1*) accelerate the MOVE operation when many moves are in progress. The 64 first
bytes of EEPROM need to be writen only one time, not as many as move operations.
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 8:25
That sounds interesting. I guess you could get down to lower level and
manipulate the root dir entries in the EEPROM file system, to do it even
faster. But that's probably not a good idea. In fact, whilst it would be very
clever -- that's a very bad idea.
I have to sleep early tonight. Very tired. I will test the bug-fixed code
tomorrow morning.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:06
Actually -- not such a bad idea if you implement a 'swapDirEntries(ent1, ent2)'
function within the EEPROM file system itself -- and then only call that from
the user model menu routine. That way it is safer and theoretically
maintainable for the future.
On the SD card version, it would be a simple renaming of file names -- say,
swapping names of MODEL01.DAT and MODEL02.DAT, to move MODEL01 down one
position. But why am I talking about that? It doesn't even exist yet. :-P
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:09
Right, this is what I have in mind: a swap operation could avoid writing
64bytes (which in a case of a 15 lines move could cost up to 15*64*6ms=5.76s).
It will only write 2 bytes.
My previous idea of one unique 64bytes write at the end of all move operations
(within memory) is bad, because it will be possible to loose many models.
Side note: today, during a copy operation, or a change within eeprom it's
impossible to loose data (because we write in the TMP entry and then we write
the index table). But during a move operation, I see a possibility of loosing
one model. With the change I propose above, the possibility will be reduced
because of the speed improvement.
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:22
Ok. Just tested on TX. The time needed for copy / move / delete operations has
been really improved. Still needed some more testing before going to the frsky
stable branch. I think that 1) and 1*) are done and 2) is not useful anymore.
Agree?
Remains point 3) I think to something on screen which would be also blinking
during an asynchronous operation (meaning that it's perhaps not a good idea to
stop now, even if the most has been done to avoid EEPROM corruption)
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 8:41
I tested this as best I could and find no problems. Only two commits to
perfection. :-D
I agree about no need for no. 2. The the 'hour glass' message (3) now and we're
done.
This is excellent.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:15
Oh - did you notice I am learning French? I used French word to compliment you
-- "excellent" :-P
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:16
Hay! Thanks! I wait for a feedback at issue #75 and it will be ported to the
stable frsky version.
Now about the hour glass, what about a hour glass at the left of 1/10, and in
all other menus near the menu number, always when we are writing on EEPROM.
It would also solve issue #61.
Agree?
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 9:41
I wasn't meaning hour glass literally. I'd prefer to see a large pop-up window
-- like the 'Delete model? Y/N' one -- so there can be no doubt the user has to
wait.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2011 at 10:44
Done. "Copying model..." and "Moving model..." popups.
Still waiting for approval from you and Cam about this feature (+ the write
indicator on all screens)
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 26 Nov 2011 at 5:19
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
gru...@gmail.com
on 20 Nov 2011 at 1:05