Graeme Russ wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 25/05/11 22:36, Scott McNutt wrote: >> Graeme Russ wrote: >>> OK, let's wind back - My original suggestion made no claim towards changing >>> what the API is used for, or how it looks to those who use it (for all >>> practical intents and purposes). I suggested: >>> - Removing set_timer() and reset_timer() >>> - Implement get_timer() as a platform independent function >> Why do you suggest removing set_timer() and reset_timer() ? >> > > Because if the timer API is done right, they are not needed
To continue the wind back ... In several implementations, reset_timer() actually reloads or re-initializes the hardware timer. This has the effect of synchronizing get_timer() calls with subsequent interrupts. This prevents the early timeouts if the implementer chooses to use an interrupt rate less than 1 ms. So my original question was, how do we address this issue? --Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
