[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Jochen Friedrich]

similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f

This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since
'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.

Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a
sector using the common cfi flash code.

Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de>
---
 cpu/sa1100/timer.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
index 0207501..aea90ab 100644
--- a/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
+++ b/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
 
 ulong get_timer (ulong base)
 {
-	return get_timer_masked ();
+	return get_timer_masked () - base;
 }
 
 void set_timer (ulong t)
-- 
1.7.0.3

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Jochen Friedrich]

similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f

This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since
'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.

Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a
sector using the common cfi flash code.

Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de>
---
 arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
index 0207501..aea90ab 100644
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
+++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
 
 ulong get_timer (ulong base)
 {
-	return get_timer_masked ();
+	return get_timer_masked () - base;
 }
 
 void set_timer (ulong t)
-- 
1.7.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 07:35:18PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f
> 
> This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since
> 'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.
> 
> Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a
> sector using the common cfi flash code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de>
> ---

Did this get applied anywhere? Fail to see it inside the git log.

>  arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> index 0207501..aea90ab 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
>  
>  ulong get_timer (ulong base)
>  {
> -	return get_timer_masked ();
> +	return get_timer_masked () - base;
>  }
>  
>  void set_timer (ulong t)
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Kristoffer,

> Did this get applied anywhere? Fail to see it inside the git log.

Nope, I didn't get any response yet.

Thanks,
Jochen

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:34:26PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Kristoffer,
> 
> >Did this get applied anywhere? Fail to see it inside the git log.
> 
> Nope, I didn't get any response yet.

Wolgang, there doesnt seem to be any submaintainers to push
patches to for SA11xx. For future reference, where should they go?

> 
> Thanks,
> Jochen

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:34:26PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Kristoffer,
> 
> >Did this get applied anywhere? Fail to see it inside the git log.
> 
> Nope, I didn't get any response yet.

Any idea on why SSP and sa1111 is non-working atm? I must be missing
setting something inside bootloader/kernel.

SA1111 is reported failure to set trigger mode 3, while SSP is just not working inside kernel.


> 
> Thanks,
> Jochen

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jochen Friedrich,

In message <1274031318-22876-1-git-send-email-jochen@scram.de> you wrote:
> similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f
> 
> This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since
> 'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.
> 
> Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a
> sector using the common cfi flash code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de>
> ---
>  arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> index 0207501..aea90ab 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
>  
>  ulong get_timer (ulong base)
>  {
> -	return get_timer_masked ();
> +	return get_timer_masked () - base;

This patch is wrong. The get_timer() code is as it was designed to be.
If it is causing problems, then the caller must be fixed.

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
Time is fluid ... like a river with currents, eddies, backwash.
	-- Spock, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Andrew Dyer]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Jochen Friedrich,
>
> In message <1274031318-22876-1-git-send-email-jochen@scram.de> you wrote:
>> similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f
>>
>> This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since
>> 'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.
>>
>> Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a
>> sector using the common cfi flash code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de>
>> ---
>> ?arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c | ? ?2 +-
>> ?1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
>> index 0207501..aea90ab 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
>> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
>>
>> ?ulong get_timer (ulong base)
>> ?{
>> - ? ? return get_timer_masked ();
>> + ? ? return get_timer_masked () - base;
>
> This patch is wrong. The get_timer() code is as it was designed to be.
> If it is causing problems, then the caller must be fixed.

Hmmm. I put the same patch in a long time ago for imx for the same reason.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/45922
Looking at some other arm timer implementations they do it the same way.

I see the cfi_flash code now has reset_timer calls sprinkled through
it that should make the base offset functionality in the timer mostly
a nop (assuming it's implemented).  Maybe the OP has old cfi_flash
code?

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Andrew,

In message <AANLkTim48UHND2wg0jCqs-EIZ2T_CGV-DUVatPzh6h6l@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c
> >> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
> >>
> >>  ulong get_timer (ulong base)
> >>  {
> >> -     return get_timer_masked ();
> >> +     return get_timer_masked () - base;
> >
> > This patch is wrong. The get_timer() code is as it was designed to be.
> > If it is causing problems, then the caller must be fixed.
> 
> Hmmm. I put the same patch in a long time ago for imx for the same reason.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/45922
> Looking at some other arm timer implementations they do it the same way.

Hm... ouch...

Guess this needs fixing.

> I see the cfi_flash code now has reset_timer calls sprinkled through
> it that should make the base offset functionality in the timer mostly
> a nop (assuming it's implemented).  Maybe the OP has old cfi_flash
> code?

Well, "sprinkled" - I see exactly two such calls. And I think these
are only needed because the implementer did not understand the
concept of how to implement a timeout using unsigned arithmentic in a
way that works even when the timer wraps around.



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 Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits
of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does
at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower.
            - R.  Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

[U-Boot] [PATCH] sa1100 change get_timer(base) to return time since base

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Andrew,

> I see the cfi_flash code now has reset_timer calls sprinkled through
> it that should make the base offset functionality in the timer mostly
> a nop (assuming it's implemented).  Maybe the OP has old cfi_flash
> code?

You're right. reset_timer() was added in commit 
22d6c8faac4e9fa43232b0cf4da427ec14d72ad3, which was committed after 
i submitted this patch.

Thanks,
Jochen