From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3670B354.4AFACB80@jlc.net> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:53:25 -0500 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Guy G. Sotomayor, Jr." CC: Cort Dougan , Troy Benjegerdes , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: PReP RTC vs Decrementer accuracy... References: <366EDF74.6EE17E0D@jlc.net> <366F62CC.1C4B225E@shiresoft.com> <36700A9F.C1C99794@jlc.net> <36702079.69588EB4@shiresoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Guy G. Sotomayor, Jr. wrote: > Dan Malek wrote: > > Excellent idea. I have started to implement this on an MPC8xx board, > > so I will let everyone know the results pretty quickly. > .....this is how we kept time since all of the processors we were > dealing with had a time base or its moral equivalent..... I have it running on an MPC8xx board right now, we'll see how it keeps time overnight with some other programs running. I couldn't point to any problems with the decrementer, but I think my implementation of the TB prevents missing any counts. One nice thing I discovered is the decrementer is an exception rather than an interrupt, so you are unlikely to mask it like you do with the TB interrupt. I am working on a version right now that I will run on my PowerBook G3 to see if I can actually make it run on a 750 platform. -- Dan [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]