This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading

From: Øyvind Harboe <oyvind dot harboe at zylin dot com>
To: Bart Veer <bartv at ecoscentric dot com>
Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:22:19 +0200
Subject: Re: [ECOS] hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
References: <1118229873.11654.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050611134933.7C2CA65C057@smtp.ecoscentric.com> <1118685436.31409.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050613185448.1D92265C057@smtp.ecoscentric.com>

[lots of valid objections to my suggested HAL_DELAY_US() implementation
 deleted]

There is one issue with making HAL_DELAY_US() compulsory that has not
been discussed: how likely is it to get a consensus to do so?

My thinking was that a default implementation of HAL_DELAY_US() would
improve that chances of getting a consensus. 

The crummy HAL_DELAY_US() I suggested scored on this point. It would
work correctly on almost any platform.



-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

References:
- hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
  - From: Øyvind Harboe
- Re: hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
  - From: Bart Veer
- Re: hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
  - From: Øyvind Harboe
- Re: hal_delay_us() patch to at91_misc + multithreading
  - From: Bart Veer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]