From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott McNutt <smcnutt@psyent.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:08:39 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] Review of U-Boot timer API
In-Reply-To: <4DDCF957.4050902@gmail.com>
References: <4DD7B245.5000008@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTineVAT1b_nWV8zPyfjsVnRz=6DhPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201105240024.26511.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<BANLkTi=ayrqMGzjT-EvU3Hq3ZJbo=_8oOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDB42B1.2010206@emk-elektronik.de>
	<BANLkTini5tCMFjaKkeJaehqQ0AokEv5_0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDBB29D.2050102@psyent.com>
	<20110524141950.2AB1CCF5DBF@gemini.denx.de>
	<4DDBE22D.6050806@gmail.com> <4DDCF7B9.7060804@psyent.com>
	<4DDCF957.4050902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCFF57.1080005@psyent.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

Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On 25/05/11 22:36, Scott McNutt wrote:
>> Graeme Russ wrote:
>>> OK, let's wind back - My original suggestion made no claim towards changing
>>> what the API is used for, or how it looks to those who use it (for all
>>> practical intents and purposes). I suggested:
>>>  - Removing set_timer() and reset_timer()
>>>  - Implement get_timer() as a platform independent function
>> Why do you suggest removing set_timer() and reset_timer() ?
>>
> 
> Because if the timer API is done right, they are not needed

To continue the wind back ...

In several implementations, reset_timer() actually reloads
or re-initializes the hardware timer. This has the effect of
synchronizing get_timer() calls with subsequent interrupts.
This prevents the early timeouts if the implementer chooses
to use an interrupt rate less than 1 ms.

So my original question was, how do we address this issue?

--Scott