[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:49:38 -0500
- From: joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com (Joel Sherrill)
- Subject: bsp_delay.... Question
On 04/25/2011 11:49 AM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
> without looking into the existing implementations: I would prefer to
> have nanoseconds as a base unit. If we think about systems in the 1GHz
> range, having a resolution of 1000 CPU clocks seems a bit outworn to me.
I agree with you Thomas but the existing implementations appear
to be in microseconds. The common name is rtems_bsp_delay().
I wouldn't be opposed to adding an rtems_bsp_delay_nanoseconds()
to the set.
Jennifer and I were just looking at this. The non-uniform nature
of this across the BSPs is confusing.
> Am 25.04.2011 18:02, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Some BSPs have a bsp_delay method. This is
>> a short duration spinner. We think it is in
>> microsecond units but have no idea for sure
>> and it could vary by BSP.
>> Jennifer and I would like to formalize the
>> definition of this. And standardize it across
>> BSPs. So if it is available, it is safer to
>> use. Questions are
>> + OK to make a standard BSP method?
>> + Microseconds unit?
>> If it is not available, what should the stub do?
>> Should we have bsp_delay_usecs() and bsp_delay_nsecs?
>> Comments appreciated! Please
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985