Speed 52fps on the mipi and 360mhz uC clock 200mhz psram

I have an esp32 p4 that's connected to a 1280x800 display running 2 Lane mipi at about 750 MB per second per Lane. Of course the frame buffer is in psram 2 MB and I have all sorts of tiles 100x100px that I would like to write to the screen as fast as possible and they all reside also in psram I am ...

What would you expect ram to psram or psram to psram?

I can not get DMA on the ESP32P4 to go above about 5MB/s while I can in some cases get 1000+ with a memcpy()

This is being done while no other tasks running.

Missing anything?

So anyone following this and if there are any real ESP32 gurus out there I will tell you what fixed it... can I explain why... no.

So in the IDF setup in VSCODE there is a setting for Arduino event handler, one of the parameters is the core it runs in.... it was set to CORE1, I set it to CORE0 and ...

In both cases of the scan being called, the provisioning libs and the arduino scan lib both call esp_wifi_scan_start() which seems to be a dead end as that function is in the blob (precompiled idf code)

R.

I am using VSCODE and the IDF but I do have access to Arduino Libs, and used that one to do the scan...

int n = WiFi.scanNetworks();
and this works fine in the same code, I also have a webserver on the device so I did a /ap to display the AP's to a webbrowser...

for some reason when the scan is ...

These functions are in the IDF, these are not mine, I am using the Provisioning code and when it looks for AP (SSIDs) it finds none, I found that the provisioning code called these functions and this is where it would find out there are 0 avaiable, but clearly in the log files coming out the serial ...

When I call for a wifi_scan_start and I have DEBUG on I can see it scanning, I think 14 channels, and gathering the results.
In the debug output nearing the end of the scan it will report apnum=12 meaning it found 12 SSIDs
Then it calls a function called update_wifi_scan_results() and in that ...

I am using VSCODE but the setting are almost the same