[GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] xiaoxiang781216 edited a comment on pull request #1275: arch/arm/stm32: Make SysTick as a Tickless clock source option

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

xiaoxiang781216 edited a comment on pull request #1275:
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1275#issuecomment-647002616


   > hi, this PR caught my attention. I'm looking at the changes and I don't understand why up_mdelay is conditioned on TIMER_ARCH? Isn't that supposed to be a busy loop?
   
   This is because with the hardware timer support, we can remove the pure software busyloop(arm_mdelay.c) which is less accuracy than the hardware solution:
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_timer.c#L496
   Actually, I would suggest that the new porting don't implment up_xxx timer API directly anymore, instead the porting just need implment oneshot, timer or rtc driver interface and let:
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_timer.c
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_alarm.c
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_rtc.c
   implment the arch API which is more simple and functional.
   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org