[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 3/5] OMAP: spl: call timer_inti() from SPL

[Ilya Yanok]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Yanok
> <ilya.yanok at cogentembedded.com> wrote:
> > We need to initialize timer properly, otherwise all delays
> > inside SPL will be wrong.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <ilya.yanok at cogentembedded.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c |    2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
> > index 4d1ac85..f0d766c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
> > @@ -152,6 +152,8 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *id, ulong dummy)
> >         mem_malloc_init(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START,
> >                         CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE);
> >
> > +       timer_init();
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BOARD_INIT
> >         spl_board_init();
> >  #endif
>
> Calling it twice has other bad side-effects so there should be a
> timer_init removal somewhere too.


Hm, I can see any so far. I think you are mixing it with init_timer()
function you fixed in commit 2ab2810 (BTW, these two functions deal with
the same piece of hardware. do we really need both?).
Speaking about 2ab2810, I think the problem was not init_timer() being
called twice but init_timer() called _after_ timer_init() (timer_init()
programs the timer to get correct delays but init_timer() resets the timer
so delays are wrong again).

Regards, Ilya.