On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: > > > On August 22, 2014 11:44:11 AM CDT, Pavel Pisa <p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz> wrote: >>Hello Joel, >> >>On Friday 22 of August 2014 17:25:24 Joel Sherrill wrote: >>> Pushed. >>> >>> Followups can just be subsequent patches. >> >>thanks, you are faster than light ... > > Just truing to wrap up things on a Friday. :) > >>As for the RTEMS timekeeping code, I can imagine how it could >>look better. I do not like Clock_driver_nanoseconds_since_last_tick. >>I am not even sure if it is really used by TOD (i.e. in ticker test >>seems to print rounded values on our board). > > The Classic API get time method used returns TOD in a format with seconds and > ticks since the last second. The print in that test only prints seconds. > There is a nanoseconds sample which prints at higher granularity. > Hi Pavel, you may also be interested in the recent mailing list thread with subject:
[Bug 2180] New: _TOD_Get_with_nanoseconds() is broken on SMP Sebastian suggested we adopt FreeBSD mechanisms for our clock drivers. -Gedare _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
