Ghorai, Sukumar had written, on 10/26/2010 12:34 AM, the following:
[...]
> [Ghorai] Thanks.. This is the best approach.
> Otherwise udelay() will increase the boot time.
Please define "increase the boot time" with the context to the patch
where you think the increase of boot time will be? In my
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Reinhard Meyer,
>
> In message <4cc66eca.9000...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>> Agreed here. People are invited to dig through u-boot and find all
>> those places.
>
> You know the ones you added best :-)
>
>> > int main(void)
>> > {
>> > unsigned int time = 0xF
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4cc66eca.9000...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>
> Agreed here. People are invited to dig through u-boot and find all
> those places.
You know the ones you added best :-)
> > int main(void)
> > {
> >unsigned int time = 0xFFF0;
> >unsigned int dela
On 10/25/2010 11:01 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang Denk,
>> Dear Reinhard Meyer,
>>
>> In message<4cc66a67.4000...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
It fails in case the timer wraps around.
Assume 32 bit counters, start time = 0xFFF0, delay = 0x20. It
will compute e
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Reinhard Meyer,
>
> In message<4cc66a67.4000...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>>
>>> It fails in case the timer wraps around.
>>>
>>> Assume 32 bit counters, start time = 0xFFF0, delay = 0x20. It
>>> will compute end = 0x10, the while codition is immediately false, a
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4cc66a67.4000...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>
> > It fails in case the timer wraps around.
> >
> > Assume 32 bit counters, start time = 0xFFF0, delay = 0x20. It
> > will compute end = 0x10, the while codition is immediately false, and
> > you don't have any
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> In message<4cc62b6c.30...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>>
>> In such cases I prefer to use:
>>
>> uint64_t etime;
>> ...
>> etime = get_ticks() + get_tbclk(); /* 1 second */
>> do {
>> whatever;
>> udelay (xx);
>> } while (condit
> -Original Message-
> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de]
> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:59 AM
> To: Reinhard Meyer
> Cc: Menon, Nishanth; u-boot
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mmc: omap
Dear Nishanth Menon,
In message <4cc62c81.8000...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> > You can still call udelay inside the loop if you don't want
> > to poll the condition too tightly...
> hmmm.. almost like the jiffies in kernel ;).. timing wise, I see that
Yes, except for the bugs... ;-)
Best regards,
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4cc62b6c.30...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>
> In such cases I prefer to use:
>
> uint64_t etime;
> ...
> etime = get_ticks() + get_tbclk(); /* 1 second */
> do {
> whatever;
> udelay (xx);
> } while (condition
> -Original Message-
> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de]
> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:06 AM
> To: Menon, Nishanth
> Cc: u-boot
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mmc: omap: timeout counter f
Dear Nishanth Menon,
In message <1288054924-24989-1-git-send-email...@ti.com> you wrote:
> Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
> accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
> which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
> hal
Reinhard Meyer had written, on 10/25/2010 08:14 PM, the following:
> Dear Nishanth Menon,
>> Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
>> accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
>> which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
>>
Dear Nishanth Menon,
> Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
> accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
> which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
> half the time when running at 1GHz. or the example where GCC 4.5
> compi
Having a loop with a counter is no timing guarentee for timing
accuracy or compiler optimizations. For e.g. the same loop counter
which runs when the MPU is running at 600MHz will timeout in around
half the time when running at 1GHz. or the example where GCC 4.5
compiles with different optimization
15 matches
Mail list logo
