On 03.04.2010 23:09, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 03.04.2010 01:28, Urja Rannikko wrote:
>
>> This seems to "fix" this for me - the delay loop is still unreliable, but
>> atleast the recalibration attempts only take 5s instead of minutes. This is
>> a combined diff for both my fix and the % fix.
>>
>> Index: udelay.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- udelay.c (revision 990)
>> +++ udelay.c (working copy)
>> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@
>> printf("Calibrating delay loop... ");
>>
>> recalibrate:
>> + count = 1000;
>> while (1) {
>> timeusec = measure_delay(count);
>> if (timeusec > 1000000 / 4)
>>
>>
>
> Does the timing get more reliable if you try the following stuff:
>
> - change the comparison above to
>
> if (timeusec > 1000)
>
I expect this little change to improve precision dramatically.
> - Make sure there are no CPU frequency changes or sleep states
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Urja Rannikko <[email protected]>
>>
>
> In general, I like your patch. I just hope to get more input if reducing
> the abort condition in the loop from 250 ms to 1 ms helps as well.
>
We need your patch, I had just hoped that improved precision would be
possible with the additional change I suggested. Anyway, this is
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]>
Can you commit?
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
