From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:48:44 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/1] NET: Improve TFTP booting performance
	when CONFIG_USB_KEYBOARD
In-Reply-To: <51D45F4D.2010908@wwwdotorg.org>
References: <1372847667-31928-1-git-send-email-jilin@nvidia.com>
	<20130703112023.6172D380A2C@gemini.denx.de>
	<51D45F4D.2010908@wwwdotorg.org>
Message-ID: <20130703224844.AACB2380E6A@gemini.denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Stephen,

In message <51D45F4D.2010908@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> > get_timer() is used by a number of network related services.  For
> > information, just grep for it in the net/ and drivers/net/
> > directories.  The "get_timer(0)" used in your code resets a global
> > resource, and has thus the potential of messing up a number of
> > timeouts running elsewhere in the network code.  I wonder to which
> > extend this has actually been considered (and tested) ?
> 
> I recall you mentioning this before, but can you expand on this a bit
> please?
> 
> For the two platforms I'm familiar with (Tegra and BCM2835), the
> implementation of get_timer() is simply:
> 
> unlong get_timer(ulong base)
> {
>     ulong time = read_hw_register()
>     time -= base;
>     return time;
> }
> 
> There's no global state involved. Is this implementation of get_timer()
> wrong somehow? I'm having a hard time envisaging what kind of global
> state it's supposed to maintain.

It appears you are (basically) right.  Eventually I remember an old
implementation that has been fixed since.

I checked all implementations I could find (all 102 of them) and they
all behave as you showed in your example, i. e. harmless.

An exception is "arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c" which does not respect
the "base" argument at all, i. e. which is broken.


> I always thought that every user of get_timer() was supposed to do
> something like:
> 
> ulong base = get_timer(0);
> ... work to be timed
> ulong time_diff = get_timer(base);
> 
> in other words, every user maintains their own base variable, and hence
> get_timer(0) doesn't affect any other users.

Yes, you are right. Sorry for causing confusion here.

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
Accident: A condition in which presence of mind is good, but  absence
of body is better.