On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> wrote: > Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing > accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter > which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around > half the time when running at 1GHz. or the example where GCC 4.5 > compiles with different optimization compared to GCC 4.4. use timer > to keep track of time elapse and we use an emperical number - 1sec > for a worst case timeout. This should never happen, and is adequate > imaginary condition for us to fail with timeout. > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > --- > V3: changed the delay logic, removed udelays which was introduced in > v2 as the intent was purely to have predictable time delays. the timer > logic is based on the discussion in ML using get_timer > > V2: http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg40972.html > additional cleanups + made MAX_RETRY a macro for reuse throughout > the file. tested on PandaBoard with 1GHz boot frequency and GCC4.5 on > u-boot 2010.09 + mmc patches. Requesting testing on other platforms > > V1: http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg40969.html
Tested on Overo, Beagleboard xM, and Panda. No issues found. Tested-by: Steve Sakoman <steve.sako...@linaro.org> Steve _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
