On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:44:50AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:42:20PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > > Is there a reason for not using the timecounter structure from the > > kernel? It is a layer beneath the timecompare code which is meant to > > handle this condition. As far as I can tell this issue is solved in > > the timecounter code. If it is not, then that should be a bug in the > > timecounter cyclecounter code. I don't know if this issue occurs in > > the timecounter structure because it handles the ns conversion > > differently. > > My only reason is that I am not sure that the timecounter code really > does what we need. It might well work. Consider, though, that the > 82580 register does not overflow in the usual way. The upper 24 bits > are always zero. > > What I wrote does the right thing, I think. However, duplicated > effort is always bad, so can you show me how to change it?
I took a brief look, and I think the timecounter idea might work. Later this week I'll try it out if I can. Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
