[U-Boot] Timer implementations

[Nishanth Menon]

Reinhard Meyer had written, on 10/26/2010 02:57 AM, the following:
> Wolfgang Denk schrieb:
>> Dear Reinhard Meyer,
>>
>> In message <4CC67CA1.9090302 at emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>>> If implemented with true 64 bits for get_ticks() that function is useable
>>> for timeout programming:
>>>
>>> 	ulong timeval = get_timer (0);
>>>
>>> 	do {
>>> 		...
>>> 	} while (get_timer (timeval) < TIMEOUT);
>>>
>>> It appears that the "base" parameter and return value is in CONFIG_SYS_HZ
>>> units, and not in native ticks. That causes 64 bit mul/div every
>>> time get_timer() is called. Won't hurt in a timeout loop, though.
>> But it will hurt in othe rplaces.
>>
>> Also, this code _is_ a bit different, as "get_timer(0)" makes sure
>> the counter starts ticking again at 0
> 
> Nope, it does not reset the counter itself. It returns the current
> counter value (recalculated into CONFIG_SYS_HZ units).
> Maybe you mean reset_timer() instead?
> 
> In arm9226ejs/omap/timer.c udelay() is implemented with reset_timer()
> and get_timer(). Since those functions are inherently not nestable,
> beware of base=get_timer(0); do { ... udelay(xx); ... } while (get_timer(base) < TIMEOUT);
> constructs!
At least the omap3+ code arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/timer.c
__udelay() does'nt seem to reset the timer
BUT,
unsigned long long get_ticks(void)
{
         return get_timer(0);
}
ulong get_timer(ulong base)
{        return get_timer_masked() - base;
}
ulong get_timer_masked(void)
{
         /* current tick value */
         ulong now = readl(&timer_base->tcrr) / (TIMER_CLOCK / 
CONFIG_SYS_HZ);

         if (now >= lastinc)     /* normal mode (non roll) */
                 /* move stamp fordward with absoulte diff ticks */
                 timestamp += (now - lastinc);
         else    /* we have rollover of incrementer */
                 timestamp += ((TIMER_LOAD_VAL / (TIMER_CLOCK / 
CONFIG_SYS_HZ))
                                 - lastinc) + now;
         lastinc = now;
         return timestamp;
}

if I am not mistaken, this is 32bit long.. but since we have as wdenk 
mentions below a 2^32 tick duration, we can safely go with an option 
such as:
/* If we fail after 1 second wait, something is really bad */
#define MAX_RETRY_US    (1 * 1000 * 1000)

uint64_t etime; /* actually this could be u32 */

etime = get_ticks() + usec2ticks(MAX_RETRY_US);
while (!(readl(&mmc_base->stat) & CC_MASK)) {
         if (get_ticks() <= etime) {
                 printf("%s: timedout waiting for cc2!\n", __func__);
                 return;
         }
}

sounds right?

> 
>> , and get_timer() is defined to
>> have millisecond resolution.
> 
> Actually CONFIG_SYS_HZ (whatever that is).
> 
>> So you have a guaranteed 2^32
>> milliseconds or 4294967 seconds or about 3.3 years available which
>> indeed should be sufficient to implement standard timeouts.
> 
> I think it is necessary to summarize all implicit or explicit documented
> "defined to have's" regarding the timer and then to verify that all
> implementations adhere to them.
> 
yes indeed.. :(

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon