All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.