[U-Boot] [PATCH v1 (WIP) 09/16] [Timer]Replace get_timer() usage in drivers/block/

[Simon Glass]

Hi Graeme,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/mg_disk.c |    9 ++++-----
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
> index 2198017..c8cc195 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c
> @@ -88,17 +88,16 @@ static void mg_dump_status (const char *msg, unsigned int stat, unsigned err)
>  static unsigned int mg_wait (u32 expect, u32 msec)
>  {
>        u8 status;
> -       u32 from, cur, err;
> +       u32 ts, err;
>
>        err = MG_ERR_NONE;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NIOS2
>        reset_timer();
>  #endif
> -       from = get_timer(0);
> +       ts = time_now_ms();
>
>        status = readb(mg_base() + MG_REG_STATUS);
>        do {
> -               cur = get_timer(from);
...
> -       } while (cur < msec);
> +       } while (time_since_ms(ts) < msec);
>

Well I know i have asked this before, but I feel I should ask again
because I didn't like the answer much.

Imagine we change this code to:

ts = time_now_ms() + msec
do {
...
} while (time_since_ms(ts) < 0);

That should be legal, right? But I don't think this can work since the
'since' functions return an unsigned.

[aside: this provides for another idiom that I think we talked about:

ts = time_future_ms(msec)
do {
...
} while (!time_passed(ts))

which I am not at all suggesting should be in the API :-)
end aside]

Regards.
Simon


> -       if (cur >= msec)
> +       if (time_since_ms(ts) >= msec)
>                err = MG_ERR_TIMEOUT;
>
>        return err;
> --
> 1.7.5.2.317.g391b14
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>