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 udelay() and friends which are available as soon as we have a (limited) C runtime environment, i. e. long before relocation. > > I think so. There are some boards where we actually measure the system > > clock frequency against a known reference clock. IIRC this requires > > the TB to be independent, or something like that. [It's a long time > > since that code was written.] > > The existing get_timer uses the decrementer, which is not independent of > the timebase. Yes, you are right. I should have looked up the actual implementation. Sorry, volatile memory with too few/short refresh cycles ;-) Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
