On 26.10.2010 18:26, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Nishanth Menon,
>
> In message<4cc6f23a.2040...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> No. This code is always wrong. Please fix it as described.
>> Apologies on being a dudhead, I suppose you mean the following:
>>
>> ulong start;
>> start = get_timer(0);
>> while (!(readl(&mmc_base->stat)& CC_MASK)) {
>> if (get_timer(start)> usec2ticks(MAX_RETRY_US)) {
>> printf("%s: timedout waiting for cc2!\n", __func__);
>> return;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> would this be better?
>
> No, not at all, as get_timer() returns milliseconds, not ticks.
>
> You probably want something like:
>
> ulong start = get_timer(0);
>
> while (!(readl(&mmc_base->stat)& CC_MASK)) {
> if (get_timer(0) - start>= MAX_RETRY_US/1000) {
> printf(...);
> return;
> }
> udelay(100);
> }
This will work, of course, but the original semantics of get_timer()
seems to be:
ulong start = get_timer(0);
loop {
if (get_timer(start) >= timeout_in_ms)
we_have_timeout();
}
--> get_timer(x) returns (time - x)
the subtraction is done internally.
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
