[U-Boot] [RFC][Timer API] Revised Specification - Implementation details

[J. William Campbell]

On 5/26/2011 1:27 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear "J. William Campbell",
>
> In message<4DDEAFE0.8060905 at comcast.net>  you wrote:
>> I certainly agree using 64 bits for all calculations is vast overkill.
>> In fact, I think using 64 bit calculations on systems that have only a
>> 32 bit or less timer register is probably overkill. :-) However, to
>> date,AFAIK,  no processor has exceeded the u32 in ticks per second. As I
> Not yet. But it makes no sense to start a new design with settings
> already in critical range, especially since there is zero problem
> with breaking it down by a factor of 1000 or 1e6.
>
>> pointed out in a previous e-mail, if they ever do this, we can just drop
>> one or 2 bits off the 64 bit counter and in millisecond resolution,
>> nobody will ever know.  Also as previously pointed out, usec2ticks is
> No. I will not accept a design that is so close on the edge of
> breaking.
>
> What is your exact problem with the existing interfaces ticks2usec()
> and usec2ticks() ?
>
>> not present yet in lots of implementations. Also, if the fundamental
>> clock frequency is 32 kHz  (or anything less than 1 MHz), usec2ticks is
>> 0! This probably rules out using it to get ticks per millisec or ticks
>> per sec.
> The statement "usec2ticks is 0" makes absolutely no sense as long as
> you don't say which argument you pass in.  You get a return value of
> 0 even for a tick rate in the GHz range if you pass 0 as argument.
>
> Hoewver, usec2ticks(1000) or maybe usec2ticks(100000) will probably
> return pretty useful values.
>
> [Note that by passing properly scaled arguments you can also avoid a
> number of rounding errors.]
Hi Wolfgang,
       Yes, you are correct. I was thinking usec2ticks(1), which is 
certainly not the way to do it. I am happy with usec2ticks and 
ticks2usec. That works for me. Sorry for the noise.

How about the first part of my response? Are you still thinking about it 
or is it just too bad for words :-) ?

Best Regards,
Bill Campbell

>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>