On Sunday 08 January 2012 12:33:34 Simon Glass wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 December 2011 16:08:03 Simon Glass wrote:
> >> --- a/lib/time.c
> >> +++ b/lib/time.c
> >>
> >> +ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void)
> >> +{
> >> + static ulong base_time;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We can't implement this properly. Return 0 on the first call
> >> and + * larger values after that.
> >> + */
> >> + if (base_time)
> >> + return get_timer(base_time) * 1000;
> >> + base_time = get_timer(0);
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +ulong timer_get_boot_us(void)
> >> + __attribute__((weak, alias("__timer_get_boot_us")));
> >
> > isn't this duplicating existing post_time_ms() ?
>
> Yes I am aware of the post stuff, but I have already expended great
> effort integrating the boot progress stuff and I don't want to do
> everything at once!
>
> There is some scope to join bootstage and post, but for now they are
> separate things with separate CONFIGs, and you don't have to enable
> one to get the other.ok. i'd change the "bootstage:" part of your commit message though to something like "timer: add microsecond boot func". -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
