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 with different optimization compared to GCC 4.4.
> use a udelay(10) to ensure we have a predictable delay.
> use an emperical number - 100000 uSec ~= 1sec for a worst case timeout.
> This should never happen, and is adequate imaginary condition for us
> to fail with timeout.
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() <= etime);
That is far more accurate than calling udelay() 100000 times.
(depending on implementation and granularity udelay of a few usecs
might be rounded significantly)
You can still call udelay inside the loop if you don't want
to poll the condition too tightly...
Best Regards,
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
