[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1 v3] console: USB: KBD: Fix incorrect autoboot timeout
Jon Hunter
jon-hunter at ti.com
Thu Mar 21 16:10:51 CET 2013
Hi Marek,
On 03/20/2013 07:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Jon Hunter,
>
>> On 01/24/2013 05:05 AM, Jim Lin wrote:
>>> Autoboot timeout defined by CONFIG_BOOTDELAY will not be accurate if
>>> CONFIG_USB_KEYBOARD and CONFIG_SYS_USB_EVENT_POLL are defined in
>>> configuration file and when tstc() function for checking key pressed
>>> takes longer time than 10 ms (e.g., 50 ms) to finish.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jim Lin <jilin at nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - use do-while and get_timer to count timeout.
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> - revert original udelay(10000); for safety.
>>>
>>> common/main.c | 10 +++++-----
>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/common/main.c b/common/main.c
>>> index b145f85..dcd2a42 100644
>>> --- a/common/main.c
>>> +++ b/common/main.c
>>> @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ static inline
>>>
>>> int abortboot(int bootdelay)
>>> {
>>>
>>> int abort = 0;
>>>
>>> + unsigned long ts;
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MENUPROMPT
>>>
>>> printf(CONFIG_MENUPROMPT);
>>>
>>> @@ -248,11 +249,10 @@ int abortboot(int bootdelay)
>>>
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> while ((bootdelay > 0) && (!abort)) {
>>>
>>> - int i;
>>> -
>>>
>>> --bootdelay;
>>>
>>> - /* delay 100 * 10ms */
>>> - for (i=0; !abort && i<100; ++i) {
>>> + /* delay 1000 ms */
>>> + ts = get_timer(0);
>>> + do {
>>>
>>> if (tstc()) { /* we got a key press */
>>>
>>> abort = 1; /* don't auto boot */
>>> bootdelay = 0; /* no more delay */
>>>
>>> @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ int abortboot(int bootdelay)
>>>
>>> break;
>>>
>>> }
>>> udelay(10000);
>>>
>>> - }
>>> + } while (!abort && get_timer(ts) < 1000);
>>>
>>> printf("\b\b\b%2d ", bootdelay);
>>>
>>> }
>>
>> This change is causing problems with auto-delay on one of my boards by
>> making it inaccurate :-(
>>
>> The question is what should get_timer() be returning? If it is meant to
>> be milliseconds then I guess I need to fix get_timer() for my board.
>> However, if it is just meant to be timer ticks at the SYS_HZ rate then I
>> don't see how the above change guarantees the do-while loop waits 1000
>> ms per iteration without normalising to SYS_HZ.
>
> What board is it ?
It is an OMAP2420-H4 board (ARM11). The timer is using a very odd SYS_HZ
value of ~46875 (I believe this is because this is the most they can
divide down the 12MHz clock source by). The timer could be switched to
use a 32kHz clock source instead of the 12MHz clock source and get
something closer to 1ms. However, I would need to test to see if this
causes any other problems.
Cheers
Jon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list