On 10/25/2010 11:01 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message4cc66a67.4000...@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
It fails in case the timer wraps around.
Assume 32 bit counters, start time = 0xFFF0, delay = 0x20. It
will compute end = 0x10, the while
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message 4cc66eca.9000...@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
Agreed here. People are invited to dig through u-boot and find all
those places.
You know the ones you added best :-)
int main(void)
{
unsigned int time = 0xFFF0;
unsigned int delay = 0x20;
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message 4cc66eca.9000...@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
Agreed here. People are invited to dig through u-boot and find all
those places.
You know the ones you added best :-)
int main(void)
{
unsigned int time = 0xFFF0;
Ghorai, Sukumar had written, on 10/26/2010 12:34 AM, the following:
[...]
[Ghorai] Thanks.. This is the best approach.
Otherwise udelay() will increase the boot time.
Please define increase the boot time with the context to the patch
where you think the increase of boot time will be? In my
Dear Nishanth Menon,
Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
half the time when running at 1GHz. or the example where GCC 4.5
compiles
Reinhard Meyer had written, on 10/25/2010 08:14 PM, the following:
Dear Nishanth Menon,
Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
half
-Original Message-
From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Menon, Nishanth
Cc: u-boot
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mmc: omap: timeout counter fix
Dear Nishanth Menon
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message 4cc62b6c.30...@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
In such cases I prefer to use:
uint64_t etime;
...
etime = get_ticks() + get_tbclk(); /* 1 second */
do {
whatever;
udelay (xx);
} while (condition
Dear Nishanth Menon,
In message 4cc62c81.8000...@ti.com you wrote:
You can still call udelay inside the loop if you don't want
to poll the condition too tightly...
hmmm.. almost like the jiffies in kernel ;).. timing wise, I see that
Yes, except for the bugs... ;-)
Best regards,
-Original Message-
From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Reinhard Meyer
Cc: Menon, Nishanth; u-boot
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mmc: omap: timeout counter fix
Dear
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
In message4cc62b6c.30...@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
In such cases I prefer to use:
uint64_t etime;
...
etime = get_ticks() + get_tbclk(); /* 1 second */
do {
whatever;
udelay (xx);
} while (condition get_ticks()=
11 matches
Mail list logo
