API Rewrite

Hi Wolfgang.

OK, I've had a look at how the Linux API is used - in particular time_after(). Here is a typical random example (from drivers/spi/ep93xx_spi.c):

	timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_TIMEOUT);
	while (ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE) {
		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
			dev_warn(&espi->pdev->dev,
				 "timeout while flushing RX FIFO\n");
			msg->status = -ETIMEDOUT;
			return;
		}
		ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPDR);
	}

Now I personally do not like the global 'jiffies' variable for two reasons:

a) It assumes there is some interrupt source updating jiffies which we cannot guarantee. The discussions of the new API had the background counter being update by both a background interrupt (if available) or a call to get_timer()
b) It has no fixed time base

So it looks like the nanosecond clocksource code and the time_after et al macros are not directly related (as evidenced by time_after being in jiffies.h)

So maybe we should look at something along the lines of:

	timeout = get_ms_count() + SPI_TIMEOUT;
	while (ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE) {
		if (time_after(get_ms_count(), timeout)) {
			dev_warn(&espi->pdev->dev,
				 "timeout while flushing RX FIFO\n");
			msg->status = -ETIMEDOUT;
			return;
		}
		ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPDR);
	}

The get_ms_count() name is up for debate

So this would mean minimal timer related code conversion bringing drivers from Linux, and a namespace which does not match Linux that will hence generate obvious compile errors.

If you really wanted to we could

#define jiffies get_ms_count()
#define msecs_to_jiffies(x) x

But I think that might be dangerous

Now we can use the existing get_timer(0) call (as I already did with this patch series) now and create the underlying architecture intrusive re-write of the generic 'clocksource' API later.

And then phase 3 would be to revisit udelay

Regards,

Graeme