From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <441F6EDC.6020502@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:11:24 -0300 From: Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Synchronising TSC and periodic timer References: <44172B67.2000609@domain.hid> <200603201142.27591.lbocseg@domain.hid> <441EDD9B.20708@domain.hid> <200603201627.54738.lbocseg@domain.hid> <441F4494.5010803@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <441F4494.5010803@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka escreveu: >We discussed a lot about how to prevent the user shooting him/herself in >the knee with inter-tick timestamps, but I still think that >rtdm_clock_read_tsc() would even be worse in this regard. > =20 > What do you think abou this documentation: "This function is meant to be used in periodic mode for getting a high=20 timestamp, independently from the system timer's tick. Its return values should not be used mixed with rtdm_clock_read() values=20 because they are not syncronised. Driver authors[developers?] are advised to state this on driver=20 documentation for the final users where returning these values to them=20 for avoiding confusion. Note: This function is available for uniprocessor systems only in the=20 meantime." I think it explains and will not make confusion in driver developers...=20 If sometime someone give a good solution to the syncronisation problem=20 between multiple processors, this can be changed... > ... Rodrigo. =09 =09 =09 _______________________________________________________=20 Yahoo! doce lar. Fa=E7a do Yahoo! sua homepage.=20 http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html=20