From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_Bie=DFmann?= <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:58:29 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] ARM timing code refactoring
In-Reply-To: <4D3D695A.6060006@free.fr>
References: <4D3AAF63.1030600@free.fr>	<20110122191928.49E141365DB@gemini.denx.de>	<4D3B3B5C.2060205@free.fr>	<20110122212601.9C8A2B187@gemini.denx.de>	<4D3B5171.7090700@emk-elektronik.de>	<20110123101217.E31DFB335@gemini.denx.de>	<4D3C0271.4070306@emk-elektronik.de>	<20110123162312.CDEDE1365DB@gemini.denx.de>	<4D3C77BC.50006@emk-elektronik.de>	<20110123193502.3F2484B6@gemini.denx.de>	<4D3C96A9.7030402@free.fr>	<4D3C9BFC.1010907@emk-elektronik.de>	<20110123225758.222691365DB@gemini.denx.de>
	<4D3CD8FE.4040006@comcast.net> <4D3D2942.4060600@free.fr>
	<5A727AB5-C1C6-46D3-8C0B-A868EC6B1E7A@googlemail.com>
	<4D3D695A.6060006@free.fr>
Message-ID: <4D3D7775.6080108@gmail.com>
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

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