Peter Pearse wrote: > Dirk, Alex > Did this get tested? I looked again into it. As I now have real hardware, I can test it.
> If so did it pass? Yes. At least for me ;) I tested with (x) >> 1 (division by 2, didn't want to wait ~42 minutes) and the wrap around time was doubled. > Shall I treat it as a submitted patch? Yes, please. Thanks for asking! Best regards Dirk >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>Of Dirk Behme >>Sent: 20 October 2007 07:24 >>To: Alex Shnitman >>Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net >>Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] PATCH: fix timer overflow in DaVinci >> >>Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> >>>In message >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > angodsp.com> you wrote: > >>>>The get_timer() function in DaVinci's timer.c doesn't >> >>handle overflow >> >>>>-- it simply subtracts the "base" from the current time, but if the >>>>timer overflowed and the current time is smaller than base, >> >>a negative >> >>>>number results. The attached patch fixes that. >>> >>>I think this is the wrong approach. get_timer() should not have to >>>deal with wrap arounds, because get_timer_masked() is suppsoed to >>>handle this internally. So please fix it there. >> >>Do you like to test this? It should decrease the counter >>values from the timer running at high frequency by division. >>With this, we should have some more time before timestamp >>wraps around. >> >>Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
