[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1 v3] console: USB: KBD: Fix incorrect autoboot timeout

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

Dear Jon Hunter,

> On 01/24/2013 05:05 AM, Jim Lin wrote:
> > Autoboot timeout defined by CONFIG_BOOTDELAY will not be accurate if
> > CONFIG_USB_KEYBOARD and CONFIG_SYS_USB_EVENT_POLL are defined in
> > configuration file and when tstc() function for checking key pressed
> > takes longer time than 10 ms (e.g., 50 ms) to finish.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jim Lin <jilin@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> >    - use do-while and get_timer to count timeout.
> > 
> > Changes in v3:
> >    - revert original udelay(10000); for safety.
> >  
> >  common/main.c |   10 +++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/common/main.c b/common/main.c
> > index b145f85..dcd2a42 100644
> > --- a/common/main.c
> > +++ b/common/main.c
> > @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ static inline
> > 
> >  int abortboot(int bootdelay)
> >  {
> >  
> >  	int abort = 0;
> > 
> > +	unsigned long ts;
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MENUPROMPT
> >  
> >  	printf(CONFIG_MENUPROMPT);
> > 
> > @@ -248,11 +249,10 @@ int abortboot(int bootdelay)
> > 
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  	while ((bootdelay > 0) && (!abort)) {
> > 
> > -		int i;
> > -
> > 
> >  		--bootdelay;
> > 
> > -		/* delay 100 * 10ms */
> > -		for (i=0; !abort && i<100; ++i) {
> > +		/* delay 1000 ms */
> > +		ts = get_timer(0);
> > +		do {
> > 
> >  			if (tstc()) {	/* we got a key press	*/
> >  			
> >  				abort  = 1;	/* don't auto boot	*/
> >  				bootdelay = 0;	/* no more delay	*/
> > 
> > @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ int abortboot(int bootdelay)
> > 
> >  				break;
> >  			
> >  			}
> >  			udelay(10000);
> > 
> > -		}
> > +		} while (!abort && get_timer(ts) < 1000);
> > 
> >  		printf("\b\b\b%2d ", bootdelay);
> >  	
> >  	}
> 
> This change is causing problems with auto-delay on one of my boards by
> making it inaccurate :-(
> 
> The question is what should get_timer() be returning? If it is meant to
> be milliseconds then I guess I need to fix get_timer() for my board.
> However, if it is just meant to be timer ticks at the SYS_HZ rate then I
> don't see how the above change guarantees the do-while loop waits 1000
> ms per iteration without normalising to SYS_HZ.

What board is it ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut