[U-Boot] [ARM] [davinci] timer.c changes

[U-Boot] [ARM] [davinci] timer.c changes

[Nick Thompson]

I have changed the davinci timer code to work with the, originally at91
only, gd variables:

	unsigned long	timer_rate_hz;
	unsigned long	tbl;
	unsigned long	tbu;
	unsigned long long	timer_reset_value;

It does use the timer_reset_value to keep compatibility with places where
timers are not used correctly.

I have tested it on da830evm and it my board now boots correctly.

Has it been agreed on the way forward for these timer fixes? Is it worth
me posting the patch?

It does seem to me that there would be room for a common layer and
a arch specific tbl/tbu emulation layer as suggested here:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-November/081377.html

but maybe it would be good to get more boards working prior to release
and then look at how they can be made more common later?

Nick.

[U-Boot] [ARM] [davinci] timer.c changes

[Ben Gardiner]

Hi Nick,

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
> I have changed the davinci timer code to work with the, originally at91
> only, gd variables:
>
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long ? timer_rate_hz;
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long ? tbl;
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long ? tbu;
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long long ? ? ?timer_reset_value;
>
> It does use the timer_reset_value to keep compatibility with places where
> timers are not used correctly.
>
> I have tested it on da830evm and it my board now boots correctly.
>
> Has it been agreed on the way forward for these timer fixes? Is it worth
> me posting the patch?

I am very interested in taking your patch for a test-drive.

> but maybe it would be good to get more boards working prior to release
> and then look at how they can be made more common later?

+1 for that.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca