Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/3] wdt: Timeout better to be in microseconds

2017-07-07 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 21:59 -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 5 July 2017 at 11:44, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > Timeout in some abstract ticks is not what we are applying to get > > deterministic behaviour. > > A tick is always milliseconds in U-Boot, as I understand it. You see, the

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/3] wdt: Timeout better to be in microseconds

2017-07-06 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Andy, On 5 July 2017 at 11:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Timeout in some abstract ticks is not what we are applying to get > deterministic behaviour. A tick is always milliseconds in U-Boot, as I understand it. > > Convert name to show explicitly that we are using microseconds (for > watchdog

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/3] wdt: Timeout better to be in microseconds

2017-07-05 Thread Heiko Schocher
Hello Andy, Am 05.07.2017 um 19:44 schrieb Andy Shevchenko: Timeout in some abstract ticks is not what we are applying to get deterministic behaviour. Convert name to show explicitly that we are using microseconds (for watchdog it's more than precise). No functional change intended. Signed-of

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/3] wdt: Timeout better to be in microseconds

2017-07-05 Thread Bin Meng
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Timeout in some abstract ticks is not what we are applying to get > deterministic behaviour. > > Convert name to show explicitly that we are using microseconds (for > watchdog it's more than precise). > > No functional change intended. > > S

[U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/3] wdt: Timeout better to be in microseconds

2017-07-05 Thread Andy Shevchenko
Timeout in some abstract ticks is not what we are applying to get deterministic behaviour. Convert name to show explicitly that we are using microseconds (for watchdog it's more than precise). No functional change intended. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko --- drivers/watchdog/wdt-uclass.c | 4 +