Dear Simon Glass, In message <BANLkTi=t_pzb9toptqunzxarvqshn80...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > > I do think it would be nice to put a time_ prefix before all the time > functions, but this is a pretty minor point.
Agree. By now, I also find get_timer() kind of misleading - one might expect from that name that it allocates one of (eventually several available) timers. We should probably rename it into time_read(); the newly suggested function would then become time_delta() [or time_diff()]. > See my other message about computing a future time. But the less I disagree with this, mostly because it seems a too narrow design to me. There is not always and only the need for "wait-until-time-X" type of tasks. The time_delta() way to do things also gives you the option to compare timestamps that have been recorded any time before. > ad-hoc time calculation we can leave to callers of get_timer() the > better. I think these things are actually a sign of an API which is > too low level. There is a certain purity and simplicity with > get_timer(), sort of minimalist, but the ugly constructs that people > build on top of it need to be considered and brought into the equation > too. It is certainly a good idea to provide simple and reliable ways for standard tasks - but see sig below. 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 "UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
