From: "Andreas Bießmann" <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] ARM timing code refactoring
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:58:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D3D7775.6080108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D3D695A.6060006@free.fr>
Hi Albert,
Am 24.01.2011 12:58, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Le 24/01/2011 09:25, Andreas Bie?mann a ?crit :
>
>>> That's where I come back to one point of my proposal: if we can get a
>>> general framework for get_timer() to return a 64-bit free-running tick
>>> value, then we might not need a ms-based get_time() at all, because we
>>> could use get_timer() as well for ms timings, provided we can convert
>>> our timeout from ms to ticks, i.e.
>>>
>>> /* let's wait 200 milliseconds */
>>> /* Timing loop uses ticks: convert 200 ms to 'timeout' ticks */
>>> timeout = ms_to_ticks(200);
>>> u32 start = get_timer(); /* start time, in ticks */
>>> do {
>>> ...
>>> } while ( (get_timer() -start)< timeout);
>>
>> You may think about the following change to this proposal:
>>
>> /* lets wait 200 ms */
>> /* get the end point of our timeout in ticks */
>> u64 timeout_end = get_timer() + ms_to_ticks(200);
>> do {
>> ...
>> } while ( get_timer()< timeout_end);
>
> The problem here is that in the loop exit condition you replace a
> difference between two unsigned times (which always yields the correct
> duration) with a comparison of two dates (which does not).
Ok, I got your point.
regards
Andreas Bie?mann
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-24 12:58 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
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 [this message]
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=4D3D7775.6080108@gmail.com \
--to=andreas.devel@googlemail.com \
--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