Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: OctoWS2811 performance issues

  1. #1

    OctoWS2811 performance issues

    I noticed some changes to the OctoWS2811 library that have had a negative impact on performance.

    The change with the most impact on performance was this one:

    https://github.com/PaulStoffregen/Oc...9cff6356e85e46

    There's a delay(1) in the MK20DX256 case in OctoWS2811::show(). Is there any reason for that? 1ms is quite a lot of time.

    Then there was this change:

    https://github.com/PaulStoffregen/Oc...9cff6356e85e46

    Here, the previously configurable frameSetDelay has been hard coded to 300us. Previously it was 50us for 2811. I see the commit comment that 300us is required for newer WS2812B pixels, but what is the reason for not keeping this as configurable?

  2. #2
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17,059
    Please open an issue on GitHub about the 1ms delay. I'll remove it, but probably can't work on this for a couple weeks. Please, start an issue... and ping me in a couple weeks if I forget.

    The 300 us reset time is unfortunately becoming the norm on newer WS2812B chips. Worldsemi is a pretty terrible company when it comes to incompatibly changing their silicon but keeping their part numbers identical.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    Please open an issue on GitHub about the 1ms delay. I'll remove it, but probably can't work on this for a couple weeks. Please, start an issue... and ping me in a couple weeks if I forget.
    Ok, will do.

    The 300 us reset time is unfortunately becoming the norm on newer WS2812B chips. Worldsemi is a pretty terrible company when it comes to incompatibly changing their silicon but keeping their part numbers identical.
    Yeah, I get that. But can we still have an option for this? Sometimes, that extra 250us is more than I want to give up, and as long as I have compatible pixels, I shouldn't have to. Would you entertain a pull request that adds a flag for this (keeping the default at 300us)?

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by markb View Post
    Would you entertain a pull request that adds a flag for this (keeping the default at 300us)?
    +1 for this ^^^

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •