This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
> I would like to see the macro
> definition upgraded to make it compulsory rather than optional, and
> require the macro to be thread-safe.
Makes sense. I2C seems to be based upon these assumptions.
> I am happy to do a synthetic
> target implementation, but that still leaves other architectures where
> the macro would need to be added or fixed.
How about calibrating a CPU counter loop implementaiton upon startup
using the default hardware timer in the HAL?
- a couple of ms to the startup time is a small price to pay for
a default implementation of a HAL_DELAY_US()
- The HAL_DELAY_US() definition should state that the the accuracy
is not very good, but that it is guaranteed to wait at least
n us.
Is there a fundamental reason why HAL_DELAY_US() needs to be very
accurate(i.e. say <20-30%)
>
> Bart
>
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss