[U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com
---
drivers/block/mg_disk.c |9 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
index 2198017..c8cc195 100644
--- a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
@@ -88,17 +88,16 @@ static void mg_dump_status (const char *msg, unsigned int
stat, unsigned err)
static unsigned int mg_wait (u32 expect, u32 msec)
{
u8 status;
- u32 from, cur, err;
+ u32 ts, err;
err = MG_ERR_NONE;
#ifdef CONFIG_NIOS2
reset_timer();
#endif
- from = get_timer(0);
+ ts = time_now_ms();
status = readb(mg_base() + MG_REG_STATUS);
do {
- cur = get_timer(from);
if (status MG_REG_STATUS_BIT_BUSY) {
if (expect == MG_REG_STATUS_BIT_BUSY)
break;
@@ -119,9 +118,9 @@ static unsigned int mg_wait (u32 expect, u32 msec)
break;
}
status = readb(mg_base() + MG_REG_STATUS);
- } while (cur msec);
+ } while (time_since_ms(ts) msec);
- if (cur = msec)
+ if (time_since_ms(ts) = msec)
err = MG_ERR_TIMEOUT;
return err;
--
1.7.5.2.317.g391b14
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Hi Graeme,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com
---
drivers/block/mg_disk.c | 9 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
index 2198017..c8cc195 100644
--- a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
@@ -88,17 +88,16 @@ static void mg_dump_status (const char *msg, unsigned int
stat, unsigned err)
static unsigned int mg_wait (u32 expect, u32 msec)
{
u8 status;
- u32 from, cur, err;
+ u32 ts, err;
err = MG_ERR_NONE;
#ifdef CONFIG_NIOS2
reset_timer();
#endif
- from = get_timer(0);
+ ts = time_now_ms();
status = readb(mg_base() + MG_REG_STATUS);
do {
- cur = get_timer(from);
...
- } while (cur msec);
+ } while (time_since_ms(ts) msec);
Well I know i have asked this before, but I feel I should ask again
because I didn't like the answer much.
Imagine we change this code to:
ts = time_now_ms() + msec
do {
...
} while (time_since_ms(ts) 0);
That should be legal, right? But I don't think this can work since the
'since' functions return an unsigned.
[aside: this provides for another idiom that I think we talked about:
ts = time_future_ms(msec)
do {
...
} while (!time_passed(ts))
which I am not at all suggesting should be in the API :-)
end aside]
Regards.
Simon
- if (cur = msec)
+ if (time_since_ms(ts) = msec)
err = MG_ERR_TIMEOUT;
return err;
--
1.7.5.2.317.g391b14
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Dear All,
Well I know i have asked this before, but I feel I should ask again
because I didn't like the answer much.
Imagine we change this code to:
ts = time_now_ms() + msec
do {
...
} while (time_since_ms(ts) 0);
That should be legal, right? But I don't think this can work since the
'since' functions return an unsigned.
[aside: this provides for another idiom that I think we talked about:
ts = time_future_ms(msec)
do {
...
} while (!time_passed(ts))
which I am not at all suggesting should be in the API :-)
end aside]
I still vouch for this concept, which is simple, clean, and easy to understand.
Reinhard
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Hi Reinhard,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Reinhard Meyer
u-b...@emk-elektronik.de wrote:
Dear All,
Well I know i have asked this before, but I feel I should ask again
because I didn't like the answer much.
Imagine we change this code to:
ts = time_now_ms() + msec
do {
...
} while (time_since_ms(ts) 0);
That should be legal, right? But I don't think this can work since the
'since' functions return an unsigned.
[aside: this provides for another idiom that I think we talked about:
ts = time_future_ms(msec)
do {
...
} while (!time_passed(ts))
which I am not at all suggesting should be in the API :-)
end aside]
I still vouch for this concept, which is simple, clean, and easy to
understand.
It really is a matter of personal taste ;) I find
u32 start = time_now_ms();
do {
...blah...
} while(time_since_ms(start) timeout);
much easier to understand (Do whatever while time elapsed since I started
is less than the timeout)
u32 end = time_future_ms(timeout);
do {
...blah...
} while(time_now_ms() end);
to me is a bit more clunky. Yes, it is probably computationally more
efficient, but it does not naturally support:
u32 start = time_now_ms();
u32 duration;
...blah...
duration = time_since_ms(start);
/* or duration = time_max_since_ms(start); */
Which we want for profiling.
Also there are a few instances where there are multiple cascaded timeouts
u32 start = time_now_ms();
do {
...blah...
} while(time_since_ms(start) timeout_1);
do {
...blah...
} while(time_since_ms(start) timeout_2);
Which means setting up all your timeouts in advance
Regards,
Graeme
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Hi Graeme,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Reinhard,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Reinhard Meyer
u-b...@emk-elektronik.de wrote:
Dear All,
Well I know i have asked this before, but I feel I should ask again
because I didn't like the answer much.
Imagine we change this code to:
ts = time_now_ms() + msec
do {
...
} while (time_since_ms(ts) 0);
That should be legal, right? But I don't think this can work since the
'since' functions return an unsigned.
[aside: this provides for another idiom that I think we talked about:
ts = time_future_ms(msec)
do {
...
} while (!time_passed(ts))
which I am not at all suggesting should be in the API :-)
end aside]
I still vouch for this concept, which is simple, clean, and easy to
understand.
It really is a matter of personal taste ;) I find
u32 start = time_now_ms();
do {
...blah...
} while(time_since_ms(start) timeout);
much easier to understand (Do whatever while time elapsed since I started
is less than the timeout)
u32 end = time_future_ms(timeout);
do {
...blah...
} while(time_now_ms() end);
...
Actually:
} while (time_passed_ms(end))
but anyway I agree it is a matter of taste and I'm quite happy with
the approach here at the moment.
But what about my question about signed ints for deltas?
Regards,
Simon
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/
Hi Simon,
u32 end = time_future_ms(timeout);
do {
...blah...
} while(time_now_ms() end);
...
Actually:
} while (time_passed_ms(end))
Sorry, but I think you've lost me here...
but anyway I agree it is a matter of taste and I'm quite happy with
the approach here at the moment.
But what about my question about signed ints for deltas?
We use signed int's to allow seamless roll-overs of the timer counter.
One thing the API does not require is that a given low-level timer counts
from zero - It can start with any value and therefore may roll-over at
any time. By using unsigned provided there is at most one rollover between
timing events (which for a 32-bit millisecond counter is a very long time)
the logic remain trivial (time = end - start) - We don't have to try and
detect the rollover.
Also, we assume the u-Boot will never be installed in a time machine, and
will therefore never need to calculate negative time. Please let us know
if you plan to boot a TARDIS using U-Boot ;)
Regards,
Graeme
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
