Search options (Page 47 of 87)

With these results we get: one digitalRead() takes 4134 ns, one direct port read takes 83 ns (again correcting for 819 ns loop overhead). The conclusion being that digitalRead() is 50x as slow as direct port reads.

Which one is correct? I don’t know for sure. I retried the direct port read with 16 entries per loop, and got 67 ns, which seems to indicate that a direct port read takes one processor cycle (62.5 ns), as I would indeed expect.

Conclusion: if performance is the goal, then we may need to ditch the Arduino approach.

Update – Based on JimS’s timing code (see comments): digitalRead() = 58 cycles and direct pin read = 1 cycle.

Update #2 – The “1 cycle” mentioned above is indeed what I measured, but incorrect. The bit extraction was probably optimized away. So it looks like direct pin access can’t be more than 29x faster than digitalRead(). As pointed out by WestfW in the comments, digitalRead() and digitalWrite() have predictable performance across all use cases, including when the pin number is variable. In some cases that may matter more than raw speed.

Update #3 – Another caveat – Lies, damn lies, and statistics! – is that the register allocations for the above loops make it extremely difficult to draw exact conclusions. Let me just conclude with: there are order-of-magnitude performance implications, depending on how you do things. As long as you keep that in mind, you’ll be fine.

jazzmarazz wrote:

The 74HC165 is a Parallel-In, Serial-Out shift register... however I think that it may not be connected directly to a USB cable. lol
Maybe an RS232 cable, but not directly USB... it was a wild idea any way. The thought was to have no microcontroller to reduce size and cost.

Theoretically... could we leverage some parallel interface for that? It should be feasible to clock it from GB clock and get all the data as needed. In fact we only need VSYNC, CLOCK, DATA0, DATA1... some 4 pin parallel interface anyone?