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: u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] 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
<265CBF1670611D47B47E67959D02EBE3C381D8@mngilex001.Jerusalem.m
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 dirk.behme@gmail.com