Hi Scott, On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, Scott McNutt <smcn...@psyent.com> wrote: > 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?
We fix them dear Liza dear Liza ;) That is what this thread is trying to figure out Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
