On 10/16/19 7:51 PM, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:43:09PM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:26:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 10/16/19 7:11 PM, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> Add get_timer_us(), which is useful e.g. when we need higher >>>>> precision timestamps. >>>> >>>> FWIW, I agree with Simon that bootstage [1] can be an awesome tool for >>>> profiling and boot time measurements. With a bit of instrumentation and >>>> host-side scripting, it allows to produce accurate bootcharts like [2]. >>>> >>>> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1177393/#2281091 >>>> [2] https://i.ibb.co/mG6Xc1p/2019-10-16-190251.png >>> >>> I don't need that though, I really only need to know how long the code >>> spent between two points in code. >> >> It can be accomplished in N ways. A quick and dirty way to use >> "bootstage" would be to add below instrumentation: >> >> ----------8<---------- >> bootstage_mark_name(BOOTSTAGE_ID_ALLOC, "count/time from here"); >> /* >> * my-precious-code >> */ >> bootstage_mark_name(BOOTSTAGE_ID_ALLOC, "duration of my-precious-code"); >> ----------8<---------- >> >> It's likely orthogonal to what's being proposed in your patch. > > Bottom line is "bootstage" already makes use of timer_get_boot_us(), so > it's not entirely clear to me why another us-resolution timer API would > be needed.
Because the new API is actually aligned with the old one. I don't need the machinery behind the bootstage either. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
