Dear "J. William Campbell", In message <4ddbcd69.9090...@comcast.net> you wrote: > > After really looking into this, I think I agree with Wolfgang > that using ms for a get_timer timebase is the best way to go. This > thinking is heavily influenced (in my case anyway) by the fact that in > the interrupt driven cases (and these are the ONLY fully compliant cases > ATM I think), the "cost" of using ms is 0, because that is the "native" > unit in which the timer ticks. This makes everything real simple. We > can, right today, produce an API that supports u32 get_time_ms(void) for > all CPUs in use. This would allow u32 get_timer(u32 base) to continue to > exist as-is. These implementations would still be technically "broken" > in the non-interrupt case, but they would work at least as well as they > presently do. In fact, they would operate better because they would all > use a single routine, not a bunch of different routines (some of which I > am pretty sure have errors). Wolfgang would need to accept the fact that > we are not yet "fixing" all the non-interrupt cases. This needs to be > done, but is a different problem (I hope). In the non-interrupt case
I see this as you do, so this there will be no problems for me to "accept" this. Thanks! 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 You know that feeling when you're leaning back on a stool and it starts to tip over? Well, that's how I feel all the time. - Steven Wright _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
