It worked for me. Can you specify that? The overflow check would have to be implemented by an upper layer, right? I can adapt my former patch using the tick solution to do the multiplication first if this is better.
Kind Regards Robin On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 20:25, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 21/04/2021 19:30, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 21/04/2021 11:00, Robin Müller wrote: > > > >> Okay, good to know. Do you think it's okay if my simpler > >> implementation is used completely? > >> Another option would be to use the simple function for the oscillator > >> init functions (sth like a private HAL_GetTick_OscInit function). > >> But maybe you have a better idea. > > If the ticks base solution works it is all right. The HAL_GetTick() - > > HAL_GetTick() (e.g. tick 0xffffabcd - tick 0x123) should return a > > correct interval during a tick overflow. > It should be 0x123 - 0xffffabcd. > > -- > embedded brains GmbH > Herr Sebastian HUBER > Dornierstr. 4 > 82178 Puchheim > Germany > email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16 > fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München > Registernummer: HRB 157899 > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: > https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel