[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Mike Frysinger]

the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the 
original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct.  some common code that 
uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty much 
immediate.  makes me think that we've spent time on making udelay() work, but 
then just glossed over the rest.

unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these 
functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it.

my understanding is that:
 - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"
 - get_tbclk - return number of "cpu ticks" that elapse in one second
 - timer_init - setup a core timer
 - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or how 
"x" is used
 - reset_timer - reset core timer to 0
 - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as in the 
Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how many times to 
execute per second)
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090327/29966392/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Dirk Behme]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the 
> original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct.  some common code that 
> uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty much 
> immediate.  makes me think that we've spent time on making udelay() work, but 
> then just glossed over the rest.
> 
> unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these 
> functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it.

Yes, you are right. Some days ago I found that no proper documentation 
for the ticks/timer related code is there, too.

 From looking at the existing code for some ARM boards (OSK, DaVinci, 
OMAP3) my idea of this code is:

> my understanding is that:
>  - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"

Yes. Returns the number of cpu ticks since power up. I.e. with 1000 
ticks per second (CONFIG_SYS_HZ) the number of elapsed ms since power up.

>  - get_tbclk - return number of "cpu ticks" that elapse in one second

Yes. Some implementations just return CONFIG_SYS_HZ which is supposed 
to be 1000.

>  - timer_init - setup a core timer

Some implementations do this in interrupt_init(), too.

>  - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or how 
> "x" is used

This is similar to get_ticks(), i.e. returns the number of ticks since 
power up. Parameter x is used as a base which is subtracted from 
ticks. With x == 0 this function is the same as get_ticks(). If x != 0 
the value returned is

number of ticks since power up - x

>  - reset_timer - reset core timer to 0

Some implementations don't reset the timer (hw device) itself. They 
just reset the timestamp counter (sw variable) which counts the ticks 
since power up (i.e. that is returned by get_ticks()).

>  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as in the 
> Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how many times to 
> execute per second)

CONFIG_SYS_HZ is supposed to be 1000

Does this make sense?

Best regards

Dirk

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Mike Frysinger]

so if we were to document things, it should read like this:
 - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000
 - get_ticks() / get_tbclk() should be deprecated -- use get_timer() instead
 - get_timer(X) returns the number of milliseconds since the last call to 
reset_timer(), minus X (which is in milliseconds too)

is there any reason to keep ticks/tbclk around ?  looking at consumers of 
these functions, they seem to re-implement the get_timer() logic anyways.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090330/4c60685f/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 21:30 Fri 27 Mar     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the 
> original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct.  some common code that 
> uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty much 
> immediate.  makes me think that we've spent time on making udelay() work, but 
> then just glossed over the rest.
> 
> unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these 
> functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it.
> 
> my understanding is that:
>  - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"
>  - get_tbclk - return number of "cpu ticks" that elapse in one second
>  - timer_init - setup a core timer
>  - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or how 
> "x" is used
>  - reset_timer - reset core timer to 0
>  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as in the 
> Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how many times to 
> execute per second)

I've take a look on the current timer API and I've a lot of limitation on it
as example on bitbanging we can not generate a clock over 200Khz or near
as you said the API is dark

I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new
U-Boot api devired from it's design

I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement

Generic delay function implementation
 - ndelay()
 - udelay()
 - mdelay()

Generic helper
 - khz2cycles()
 - hz2cycles()
 - cs2ns()

Timer API
 - timer_init()		- setup the timer
 - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
 - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
 - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns

Best Regards,
J.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 04:17:06 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 21:30 Fri 27 Mar     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the
> > original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct.  some common code
> > that uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty
> > much immediate.  makes me think that we've spent time on making udelay()
> > work, but then just glossed over the rest.
> >
> > unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these
> > functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it.
> >
> > my understanding is that:
> >  - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"
> >  - get_tbclk - return number of "cpu ticks" that elapse in one second
> >  - timer_init - setup a core timer
> >  - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or
> > how "x" is used
> >  - reset_timer - reset core timer to 0
> >  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as
> > in the Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how
> > many times to execute per second)
>
> I've take a look on the current timer API and I've a lot of limitation on
> it as example on bitbanging we can not generate a clock over 200Khz or near
> as you said the API is dark
>
> I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new
> U-Boot api devired from it's design

the clocksource framework in linux sounds like extreme overkill for u-boot.  
where do you see realistic usage of more than one timer ?  u-boot is pretty 
much a single threaded app that polls.

> I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement
>
> Generic delay function implementation
>  - ndelay()
>  - udelay()
>  - mdelay()
>
> Generic helper
>  - khz2cycles()
>  - hz2cycles()
>  - cs2ns()
>
> Timer API
>  - timer_init()		- setup the timer
>  - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
>  - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
>  - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns

do you have real use cases here ?  i'd actually propose the opposite: kill off 
the notion of "ticks", "cycles", and "hz".  i dont think ndelay() is really 
necessary, and mdelay() is a simple macro on top of udelay().  that leaves us 
with really only the three functions we have today: timer_init(), get_timer(), 
and reset_timer().  we clarify that the function operates in terms of 
milliseconds and blam, it's all so simple now.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090331/3752280a/attachment-0001.pgp 

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Mike Frysinger,

In message <200903310513.09082.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
...
> > I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new
> > U-Boot api devired from it's design
>
> the clocksource framework in linux sounds like extreme overkill for u-boot.
> where do you see realistic usage of more than one timer ?  u-boot is pretty
> much a single threaded app that polls.

Correct. We definitely do not need the full capabilities of the Linux
framework. Any new implementation will be checked against the current
code, and memory foot print is something we will check carefully.

OTOH, I think Sascha's u-boot-v2 uses code that was derived from the
Linux code, but in a pretty lean way. It may be interesting to check
there...

> > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement
> >
> > Generic delay function implementation
> >  - ndelay()
> >  - udelay()
> >  - mdelay()
> >
> > Generic helper
> >  - khz2cycles()
> >  - hz2cycles()
> >  - cs2ns()
> >
> > Timer API
> >  - timer_init()		- setup the timer
> >  - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
> >  - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
> >  - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns
>
> do you have real use cases here ?  i'd actually propose the opposite: kill off 
> the notion of "ticks", "cycles", and "hz".  i dont think ndelay() is really 
> necessary, and mdelay() is a simple macro on top of udelay().  that leaves us 
> with really only the three functions we have today: timer_init(), get_timer(), 
> and reset_timer().  we clarify that the function operates in terms of 
> milliseconds and blam, it's all so simple now.

Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
available yet).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The night sky over the planet Krikkit is the least interesting  sight
in the entire Universe.
                 - Douglas Adams _Life, the Universe, and Everything_

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 06:28:23 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement
> > >
> > > Generic delay function implementation
> > >  - ndelay()
> > >  - udelay()
> > >  - mdelay()
> > >
> > > Generic helper
> > >  - khz2cycles()
> > >  - hz2cycles()
> > >  - cs2ns()
> > >
> > > Timer API
> > >  - timer_init()		- setup the timer
> > >  - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
> > >  - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
> > >  - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns
> >
> > do you have real use cases here ?  i'd actually propose the opposite:
> > kill off the notion of "ticks", "cycles", and "hz".  i dont think
> > ndelay() is really necessary, and mdelay() is a simple macro on top of
> > udelay().  that leaves us with really only the three functions we have
> > today: timer_init(), get_timer(), and reset_timer().  we clarify that the
> > function operates in terms of milliseconds and blam, it's all so simple
> > now.
>
> Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
> tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
> available yet).

hrm, i can see that.  but you agree that most use of ticks in common code can 
be converted to get_timer() ?  on Blackfin systems (and it isnt alone going by 
a grep), the ticks interface simply returns get_timer(0), so clearly we should 
be able to convert common code to all use get_timer(0).  that'd leave the 
ticks interface as optional ... for the systems that need early time sources, 
they can implement/use it as they need without bringing down everyone else.

i wouldnt mind starting a patch series for post 2009.05 to clean this up ...
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090331/eb32f988/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 12:28 Tue 31 Mar     , Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
> 
> In message <200903310513.09082.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new
> > > U-Boot api devired from it's design
> >
> > the clocksource framework in linux sounds like extreme overkill for u-boot.
> > where do you see realistic usage of more than one timer ?  u-boot is pretty
> > much a single threaded app that polls.
That's why I've tell to partially import it as have done Sascha in u-boot V2
> 
> Correct. We definitely do not need the full capabilities of the Linux
> framework. Any new implementation will be checked against the current
> code, and memory foot print is something we will check carefully.
> 
> OTOH, I think Sascha's u-boot-v2 uses code that was derived from the
> Linux code, but in a pretty lean way. It may be interesting to check
> there...
I've take a look on it and it's the idea I've in mind to do also
> 
> > > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement
> > >
> > > Generic delay function implementation
> > >  - ndelay()
> > >  - udelay()
> > >  - mdelay()
> > >
> > > Generic helper
> > >  - khz2cycles()
> > >  - hz2cycles()
> > >  - cs2ns()
> > >
> > > Timer API
> > >  - timer_init()		- setup the timer
> > >  - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
> > >  - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
> > >  - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns
> >
> > do you have real use cases here ?  i'd actually propose the opposite: kill off 
> > the notion of "ticks", "cycles", and "hz".  i dont think ndelay() is really 
> > necessary, and mdelay() is a simple macro on top of udelay().  that leaves us 
> > with really only the three functions we have today: timer_init(), get_timer(), 
> > and reset_timer().  we clarify that the function operates in terms of 
> > milliseconds and blam, it's all so simple now.
Yes I've real case where I do need ndelay to generate high speed clock with a
gpio and udelay is too slow.

we need get_cycles and get_ticks to calculate the udelay, mdelay and ndelay
otherwise how can you known the ticks frequency?
> 
> Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
> tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
> available yet).
not necessarely you can activate the timer just after the cpu_init
so normally you do not need any get_ticks.

Best Regards,
J.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Scott McNutt]

> so if we were to document things, it should read like this:
>  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000

Can't this just be eliminated? It's stupid to have a configurable
option that is neither ;-)

And it doesn't do much for my confidence when things stop working
(like my tftp downloads now that the tftp timeout has been, ahem,
"fixed") only because a "configurable" option wasn't set to the
"correct" value.

If we can't change it with breaking something, then let's stop
kidding ourselves and get rid of it.

--Scott

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 07:25 Tue 31 Mar     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 March 2009 06:28:23 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > In message Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement
> > > >
> > > > Generic delay function implementation
> > > >  - ndelay()
> > > >  - udelay()
> > > >  - mdelay()
> > > >
> > > > Generic helper
> > > >  - khz2cycles()
> > > >  - hz2cycles()
> > > >  - cs2ns()
> > > >
> > > > Timer API
> > > >  - timer_init()		- setup the timer
> > > >  - timer_reset()	- reset the timer (use in case of overflow)
> > > >  - get_ticks()		- return the current ticks
> > > >  - get_cycles()		- return the ticks frequency in ns
> > >
> > > do you have real use cases here ?  i'd actually propose the opposite:
> > > kill off the notion of "ticks", "cycles", and "hz".  i dont think
> > > ndelay() is really necessary, and mdelay() is a simple macro on top of
> > > udelay().  that leaves us with really only the three functions we have
> > > today: timer_init(), get_timer(), and reset_timer().  we clarify that the
> > > function operates in terms of milliseconds and blam, it's all so simple
> > > now.
> >
> > Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
> > tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
> > available yet).
> 
> hrm, i can see that.  but you agree that most use of ticks in common code can 
> be converted to get_timer() ?  on Blackfin systems (and it isnt alone going by 
> a grep), the ticks interface simply returns get_timer(0), so clearly we should 
> be able to convert common code to all use get_timer(0).  that'd leave the 
> ticks interface as optional ... for the systems that need early time sources, 
> they can implement/use it as they need without bringing down everyone else.
> 
> i wouldnt mind starting a patch series for post 2009.05 to clean this up ...
I've in mind too maybe I'll send a first version within few days for a arm soc
and a blackfin based on u-boot-v2

Best Regards,
J.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Mike Frysinger,

In message <200903310725.20652.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
> > tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
> > available yet).
> 
> hrm, i can see that.  but you agree that most use of ticks in common code can 
> be converted to get_timer() ?  on Blackfin systems (and it isnt alone going by 

Yes, of course I do.

> a grep), the ticks interface simply returns get_timer(0), so clearly we should 
> be able to convert common code to all use get_timer(0).  that'd leave the 
> ticks interface as optional ... for the systems that need early time sources, 
> they can implement/use it as they need without bringing down everyone else.
>
> i wouldnt mind starting a patch series for post 2009.05 to clean this up ...

Excellent. Thanks in advance.

For BF or for all architectures?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred."
              -- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28,
                 1986, as the shuttle Challenger exploded within view
                 of the grandstands.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott McNutt,

In message <49D2014F.4070802@psyent.com> you wrote:
> > so if we were to document things, it should read like this:
> >  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000
> 
> Can't this just be eliminated? It's stupid to have a configurable
> option that is neither ;-)
> 
> And it doesn't do much for my confidence when things stop working
> (like my tftp downloads now that the tftp timeout has been, ahem,
> "fixed") only because a "configurable" option wasn't set to the
> "correct" value.
> 
> If we can't change it with breaking something, then let's stop
> kidding ourselves and get rid of it.

Agreed.

We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond
resolution, though - no matter what you call it.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong.
- Oscar Wilde

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,

In message <20090331113956.GD28787@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
> > Agreed (except that we probably  cannot  completely  throw  away  the
> > tick;  IIRC  there  are  cases  in early startup when nothing else is
> > available yet).
> not necessarely you can activate the timer just after the cpu_init
> so normally you do not need any get_ticks.

Please check for example the PowerPC code, then.

Ther ethe timer implementation relies heavily on interrupts and is not
available in early stages, for example in NAND booting systems with
tight memory restrictions.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum  of  interoperability  among
some of their equipment."                            - Harv Masterson

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Dirk Behme]

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> i wouldnt mind starting a patch series for post 2009.05 to clean this up ...
> I've in mind too maybe I'll send a first version within few days for a arm soc
> and a blackfin based on u-boot-v2

In contrast to Jean-Christophe's plan

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-March/049861.html

(last sentence) I'd like that we split general ticks/timer code clean 
up and bug fixes. I'd like that we implement the changes proposed by 
Mike and Jean-Christophe independent and don't mix them with other 
fixes for broken timer code like

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-March/049146.html

Having proper/fixed (old style) timer code will make it easier to 
convert to new style afterwards.

 From my point of view this is similar to rule "don't mix coding style 
with functional changes".

Best regards

Dirk

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Mike Frysinger,

In message <200903272130.26825.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these 
> functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it.

If in doubt, look it up in the PowerPC implementation. That's the
reference for what a half-way sane world could look like.

> my understanding is that:
>  - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"
>  - get_tbclk - return number of "cpu ticks" that elapse in one second
>  - timer_init - setup a core timer
>  - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or ho> w 
> "x" is used
>  - reset_timer - reset core timer to 0
>  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as in the 
> Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how many times to 
> execute per second)

It's the number of ticks per second, i. e. 1000.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Be kind to unkind people - they need it the most.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Dirk Behme,

In message <49CDCCC1.5050503@googlemail.com> you wrote:
>
> >  - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks"
> 
> Yes. Returns the number of cpu ticks since power up. I.e. with 1000 
> ticks per second (CONFIG_SYS_HZ) the number of elapsed ms since power up.

Hey. What a chance. We have a wiki. Add that information.

> Yes. Some implementations just return CONFIG_SYS_HZ which is supposed 
> to be 1000.

get_ticks() makes no sense to me.

> >  - timer_init - setup a core timer
> 
> Some implementations do this in interrupt_init(), too.

Let them do it, if they need it, and if they document why they need
it.

> >  - get_timer(x) - not really sure what this is supposed to represent, or how 
> > "x" is used

See ppc code.

> >  - CONFIG_SYS_HZ - no idea how this relates to ticks/timer in U-Boot as in the 
> > Linux world, this is the core timer (scheduler) frequency (how many times to 
> > execute per second)
> 
> CONFIG_SYS_HZ is supposed to be 1000
> 
> Does this make sense?

Yes, it makes sense that CONFIG_SYS_HZ is supposed to be 1000.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
What is research but a blind date with knowledge?      -- Will Harvey

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond
> resolution, though - no matter what you call it.

How about just calling it HZ (or something more verbose like TIMER_HZ,
but the former makes it easier to share code with Linux) and declaring it
in a non-board header?

-Scott

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <20090331212514.GA19920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond
> > resolution, though - no matter what you call it.
> 
> How about just calling it HZ (or something more verbose like TIMER_HZ,
> but the former makes it easier to share code with Linux) and declaring it
> in a non-board header?

It's OK with me. Other opinions?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe,  Inclu-
ding  This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally
Small Space. Should  Another  Universe  Subsequently  Re-emerge,  the
Existence of This Product in That Universe Cannot Be Guaranteed.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:49:52PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Please check for example the PowerPC code, then.
> 
> Ther ethe timer implementation relies heavily on interrupts and is not
> available in early stages, for example in NAND booting systems with
> tight memory restrictions.

Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer
implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)?

-Scott

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Detlev Zundel]

Hi,

> Dear Scott Wood,
>
> In message <20090331212514.GA19920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond
>> > resolution, though - no matter what you call it.
>> 
>> How about just calling it HZ (or something more verbose like TIMER_HZ,
>> but the former makes it easier to share code with Linux) and declaring it
>> in a non-board header?
>
> It's OK with me. Other opinions?

Obviously only like-minded people around.

Who starts? ;)

Cheers
  Detlev

-- 
I will use free software even if it is less powerful, or less reliable,
because freedom is the most important thing, and that is what the Free
Software movement is about.  How we get freedom.
                       -- Richard M. Stallman
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Scott McNutt]

>> In message <20090331212514.GA19920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>> We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond
>>>> resolution, though - no matter what you call it.
>>> How about just calling it HZ (or something more verbose like TIMER_HZ,
>>> but the former makes it easier to share code with Linux) and declaring it
>>> in a non-board header?
>> It's OK with me. Other opinions?
> 
> Obviously only like-minded people around.

I'm not particular ... and please don't mistake my sometimes dry
sense of humor as complaining ... that's rarely my intent .... but
please don't use a name that implies it is configurable. I learned
the hard way that it is not. ;-)

If the value truly represents clocks per tick, or milliseconds per
tick, and the value is always fixed, something along those lines
would certainly be appropriate.

Best Regards,
--Scott

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Ladislav Michl]

Dirk,

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:55:13PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
> ... I'd like that we split general ticks/timer code clean 
> up and bug fixes. I'd like that we implement the changes proposed by 
> Mike and Jean-Christophe independent and don't mix them with other 
> fixes for broken timer code like
> 
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-March/049146.html
> 
> Having proper/fixed (old style) timer code will make it easier to 
> convert to new style afterwards.
> 
>  From my point of view this is similar to rule "don't mix coding style 
> with functional changes".

Well the very same bug is present in OMAP1 and OMAP2 timer code, so you'll
end fixing copied&paste code for no good reason.
At least cpu/arm925t/interrupts.c and cpu/arm926ejs/omap/timer.c deserves the
same fix [*] you sent for OMAP3 code. So what about merging that timer code
first and then fixing it?

	ladis

[*] I have local fix for cpu/arm925t/interrupts.c, but since those copy&pasted
files started diverging just because each of us cares about different piece of
hardware, I do not want to make situation even worse.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Graeme Russ]

Wolfgang,

Can this be put in the ToDo list so anyone who looks to clean up their
CPU and/or architecture knows what it is exactly that we are trying to
achieve

Thanks,

Graeme

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <20090331213202.GB19920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer
> implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)?

I think so. There are some boards where we actually measure the system
clock frequency against a known reference clock. IIRC this requires
the TB to be independent, or something like that. [It's a long time
since that code was written.]

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things
we don't know yet."                                  - Ambrose Bierce

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Graeme Russ,

In message <d66caabb0904021418o483a709bg6b67b87d8327c308@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> Can this be put in the ToDo list so anyone who looks to clean up their
> CPU and/or architecture knows what it is exactly that we are trying to
> achieve

Maybe you can summarize and submit a patch, please?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Our way is peace.
	-- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, "Bread and Circuses",
	   stardate 4040.7.

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Scott Wood]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
> 
> In message <20090331213202.GB19920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
> >
> > Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer
> > implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)?
> 
> I think so. There are some boards where we actually measure the system
> clock frequency against a known reference clock. IIRC this requires
> the TB to be independent, or something like that. [It's a long time
> since that code was written.]

The existing get_timer uses the decrementer, which is not independent of
the timebase.

-Scott

[U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott,

In message <20090406191242.GA4439@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> > > Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer
> > > implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)?

Side note: we already use the  timebase  for  the  implementation  of
udelay()  and  friends  which  are  available  as  soon  as we have a
(limited) C runtime environment, i. e. long before relocation.

> > I think so. There are some boards where we actually measure the system
> > clock frequency against a known reference clock. IIRC this requires
> > the TB to be independent, or something like that. [It's a long time
> > since that code was written.]
> 
> The existing get_timer uses the decrementer, which is not independent of
> the timebase.

Yes, you are right. I should have looked up the actual implementation.
Sorry, volatile memory with too few/short refresh cycles ;-)

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,  neat,
and wrong.                                           -- H. L. Mencken