Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott, In message <20090406191242.ga4...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > > > Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer > > > implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)? Side note: we already use the timebase for the implementation of ude

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-06 Thread Scott Wood
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Scott Wood, > > In message <20090331213202.gb19...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > > > Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer > > implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)? >

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-04 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Graeme Russ, In message you wrote: > > Can this be put in the ToDo list so anyone who looks to clean up their > CPU and/or architecture knows what it is exactly that we are trying to > achieve Maybe you can summarize and submit a patch, please? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Soft

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-04 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott Wood, In message <20090331213202.gb19...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > Is there any particular reason not to change the powerpc get_timer > implementation to use the timebase (scaled down to ms)? I think so. There are some boards where we actually measure the system cloc

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-02 Thread Graeme Russ
Wolfgang, Can this be put in the ToDo list so anyone who looks to clean up their CPU and/or architecture knows what it is exactly that we are trying to achieve Thanks, Graeme ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/lis

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-02 Thread Ladislav Michl
Dirk, On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:55:13PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote: > ... I'd like that we split general ticks/timer code clean > up and bug fixes. I'd like that we implement the changes proposed by > Mike and Jean-Christophe independent and don't mix them with other > fixes for broken timer code

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-02 Thread Scott McNutt
>> In message <20090331212514.ga19...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond resolution, though - no matter what you call it. >>> How about just calling it HZ (

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-04-02 Thread Detlev Zundel
Hi, > Dear Scott Wood, > > In message <20090331212514.ga19...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> > We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond >> > resolution, though - no matter what you call it. >> >> How

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Scott Wood
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:49:52PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Please check for example the PowerPC code, then. > > Ther ethe timer implementation relies heavily on interrupts and is not > available in early stages, for example in NAND booting systems with > tight memory restrictions. Is there

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott Wood, In message <20090331212514.ga19...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond > > resolution, though - no matter what you call it. > > How about just cal

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Scott Wood
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > We still need some hint that the timer works in millisecond > resolution, though - no matter what you call it. How about just calling it HZ (or something more verbose like TIMER_HZ, but the former makes it easier to share code with L

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Dirk Behme, In message <49cdccc1.5050...@googlemail.com> you wrote: > > > - get_ticks - return some notion of "cpu ticks" > > Yes. Returns the number of cpu ticks since power up. I.e. with 1000 > ticks per second (CONFIG_SYS_HZ) the number of elapsed ms since power up. Hey. What a chance.

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200903272130.26825.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any docs on what exactly these > functions do so it's hard for me to verify/change any of it. If in doubt, look it up in the PowerPC implementation. That's the reference f

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Dirk Behme
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> i wouldnt mind starting a patch series for post 2009.05 to clean this up ... > I've in mind too maybe I'll send a first version within few days for a arm soc > and a blackfin based on u-boot-v2 In contrast to Jean-Christophe's plan http://lists.denx.de/p

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD, In message <20090331113956.gd28...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote: > > > Agreed (except that we probably cannot completely throw away the > > tick; IIRC there are cases in early startup when nothing else is > > available yet). > not necessarely you ca

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott McNutt, In message <49d2014f.4070...@psyent.com> you wrote: > > so if we were to document things, it should read like this: > > - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000 > > Can't this just be eliminated? It's stupid to have a configurable > option that is neither ;-) > > And it doesn't

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200903310725.20652.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > Agreed (except that we probably cannot completely throw away the > > tick; IIRC there are cases in early startup when nothing else is > > available yet). > > hrm, i can see that. but you agree that

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
On 07:25 Tue 31 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 31 March 2009 06:28:23 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > In message Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement > > > > > > > > Generic delay function implementation > > > > - ndelay() > > > > - udelay

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
On 12:28 Tue 31 Mar , Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Mike Frysinger, > > In message <200903310513.09082.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > ... > > > I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new > > > U-Boot api devired from it's design > > > > the clocksource framew

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Scott McNutt
> so if we were to document things, it should read like this: > - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000 Can't this just be eliminated? It's stupid to have a configurable option that is neither ;-) And it doesn't do much for my confidence when things stop working (like my tftp downloads now that t

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 06:28:23 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > I'll propose a new design with the following Requierement > > > > > > Generic delay function implementation > > > - ndelay() > > > - udelay() > > > - mdelay() > > > > > > Generic helper > > > - khz2c

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200903310513.09082.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > ... > > I've in mind to partially import the clocksource linux API or create a new > > U-Boot api devired from it's design > > the clocksource framework in linux sounds like extreme overkill for u-boot. > where do

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 04:17:06 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 21:30 Fri 27 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the > > original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct. some common code > > that uses timers

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-31 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
On 21:30 Fri 27 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote: > the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the > original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct. some common code that > uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty much > immediate. makes

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-30 Thread Mike Frysinger
so if we were to document things, it should read like this: - CONFIG_SYS_HZ is required to be 1000 - get_ticks() / get_tbclk() should be deprecated -- use get_timer() instead - get_timer(X) returns the number of milliseconds since the last call to reset_timer(), minus X (which is in millisecond

Re: [U-Boot] core ticks/timer code

2009-03-28 Thread Dirk Behme
Mike Frysinger wrote: > the Blackfin core tick/timer code has been around since the start of the > original port, but i'm not sure it's entirely correct. some common code that > uses timers seems to be misbehaving in that the timeout is pretty much > immediate. makes me think that we've spent