Hi,
On 04/16/2015 02:57 PM, thomas.langer@lantiq.com wrote:
Hello Michal,
Michal Simek wrote on 2015-04-16:
From: Siva Durga Prasad Paladugu siva.durga.paladugu@xilinx.com
Fix wrong timer calculation in get_timer_masked incase of overflow. This fixes the issue of getting wrong time from get_timer() calls.
Signed-off-by: Siva Durga Prasad Paladugu sivadur@xilinx.com Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/timer.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/timer.c index 303dbcfceafb..5ed9642df9b3 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/timer.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/timer.c @@ -93,7 +93,9 @@ ulong get_timer_masked(void) gd->arch.tbl += gd->arch.lastinc - now; } else { /* We have an overflow ... */
gd->arch.tbl += gd->arch.lastinc + TIMER_LOAD_VAL - now + 1;
gd->arch.tbl += gd->arch.lastinc + (TIMER_LOAD_VAL /(gd->arch.timer_rate_hz / CONFIG_SYS_HZ))
now + 1;I had similar problems with the MIPS timer code some time ago. I solved it by switching to the common timer implementation: http://git.denx.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=a18a477147...
I don't know the arm/zynq hardware in detail, but if you use some free running counter for this, the switch should be simple.
As you can see from the diff, the previous code was also doing some complex checks to detect an overflow. With the common code, it could be reduced to two simple functions (where one could be removed, if we update all configs to define a different macro for the timer rate).
Thanks - I have changed the code and will do more testing and will update. I think make sense to apply this because it is fixes real problem and then add that new one on the top of it.
Definitely thanks for hint we should do it in past.
Thanks, Michal