Hi Simon,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Graeme,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Graeme Russ graeme.russ@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ graeme.russ@gmail.com
arch/blackfin/cpu/jtag-console.c | 4 ++-- arch/microblaze/lib/time.c | 4 ++-- arch/nios2/cpu/epcs.c | 12 ++++++------ arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc824x/drivers/i2c/i2c.c | 8 ++++---- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8260/ether_fcc.c | 12 ++++++------ 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/blackfin/cpu/jtag-console.c b/arch/blackfin/cpu/jtag-console.c index e0f2975..97ff1de 100644 --- a/arch/blackfin/cpu/jtag-console.c +++ b/arch/blackfin/cpu/jtag-console.c @@ -48,11 +48,11 @@ static inline uint32_t bfin_read_emudat(void) static bool jtag_write_emudat(uint32_t emudat) { static bool overflowed = false;
- ulong timeout = get_timer(0) + CONFIG_JTAG_CONSOLE_TIMEOUT;
- ulong start = time_now_ms();
while (bfin_read_DBGSTAT() & 0x1) { if (overflowed) return overflowed;
- if (timeout < get_timer(0))
- if (time_since_ms(start) >= CONFIG_JTAG_CONSOLE_TIMEOUT)
overflowed = true; } overflowed = false;
Here I think I have found a use of future time. It is true what they say (or should say) that there is every kind of timeout in U-Boot.
I personally think that this particular use-case of the timer API is ugly, but I was not out to change any symantics, just do a blind translation from the old API to the new API
Hopefully, this will highlight a few dodgy use cases (which I am willing to apply fixes for as and when others suggest them)
Regards,
Graeme