On Saturday, May 21, 2011 08:38:29 Graeme Russ wrote: > NOTE: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-June/073024.html appears > to imply the following implementation of get_timer() is wrong: > > ulong get_timer(ulong base) > { > return get_timer_masked() - base; > }
while this specific code might be wrong due to assumed timer rollover behavior, i think the code is wrong to ignore "base" completely. but maybe it doesnt matter after we rewrite things :). > blackfin > - Provides a 64-bit get_ticks() which simply returns 32-bit get_timer(0) seems to me that most arches do this > - get_usec_timer_64() could offer a longer period (584942 years!) if the hardware can support that large of a timer ... otherwise, i'd love to see the whole timer API reduced to just get_timer() and a proper doc/README.timer written. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
