On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Jochen Friedrich, > > In message <1274031318-22876-1-git-send-email-joc...@scram.de> you wrote: >> similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f >> >> This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since >> 'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero. >> >> Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a >> sector using the common cfi flash code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich <joc...@scram.de> >> --- >> arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c >> index 0207501..aea90ab 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c >> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void) >> >> ulong get_timer (ulong base) >> { >> - return get_timer_masked (); >> + return get_timer_masked () - base; > > This patch is wrong. The get_timer() code is as it was designed to be. > If it is causing problems, then the caller must be fixed.
Hmmm. I put the same patch in a long time ago for imx for the same reason. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/45922 Looking at some other arm timer implementations they do it the same way. I see the cfi_flash code now has reset_timer calls sprinkled through it that should make the base offset functionality in the timer mostly a nop (assuming it's implemented). Maybe the OP has old cfi_flash code? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot