From: Reinhard Meyer <u-boot@emk-elektronik.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] ARM timing code refactoring
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:26:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D3C0271.4070306@emk-elektronik.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110123101217.E31DFB335@gemini.denx.de>
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> In message<4D3B5171.7090700@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>>
>> With all this half quoting and deleting of important parts,
>> my original proposal was lost again.
>
> This is a prettyu long running thread, and I am not exactly sure what
> your original proposal actually was. Could you please post a
> reference?
I just repost here:
There were several suggestions about that in the past (including from me)
that involve rework everywhere HZ related timeouts are used. I still
prefer a method as follows (because it does not need repeated mul/div calculations
nor necessarily 64 bit arithmetic):
u32 timeout = timeout_init(100); /* 100ms timeout */
do {...} while (!timed_out(timeout));
Internally it would be like:
timeout_init(x):
return fast_tick + (x * fast_tick_rate) / CONFIG_SYS_HZ;
/* this might need 64 bit precision in some implementations */
time_out(x):
return ((i32)(x - fast_tick)) < 0;
If the tick were really high speed (and then 64 bits),
fast_tick could be derived by shifting the tick some bits to the right.
But, as long as we cannot agree on something, there will be no time spent
to make patches...
Best Regards,
Reinhard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-23 10:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-22 10:20 [U-Boot] [RFC] ARM timing code refactoring Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-22 10:42 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-22 11:32 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-22 11:00 ` [U-Boot] [RFC] U-boot (was: ARM) " Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-22 12:22 ` [U-Boot] [RFC] U-boot Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-22 19:19 ` [U-Boot] [RFC] ARM timing code refactoring Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-22 20:17 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-22 21:26 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-22 21:51 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-23 10:12 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-23 10:26 ` Reinhard Meyer [this message]
2011-01-23 16:23 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-23 18:47 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-23 19:35 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-23 20:59 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-23 21:22 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-23 22:01 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-23 22:57 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-24 1:42 ` J. William Campbell
2011-01-24 7:24 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-24 7:50 ` Reinhard Meyer
2011-01-24 12:59 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-24 8:25 ` Andreas Bießmann
2011-01-24 11:58 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-24 12:06 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-24 12:58 ` Andreas Bießmann
2011-01-24 12:54 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-24 13:02 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-24 16:23 ` J. William Campbell
2011-01-22 22:13 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-01-23 16:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D3C0271.4070306@emk-elektronik.de \
--to=u-boot@emk-elektronik.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox