Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/arm/ep93xx

[Ken Hornstein <kenh%cmf.nrl.navy.mil@localhost>]

>Would something like (untested!):
>
>-       remaining = n * TIMER_FREQ / 1000000;
>+       remaining = (uint64_t)n * TIMER_FREQ / 1000000;
>
>do instead, forcing 64-bit arithmetic?

I admit to being lame and always forgetting the rules when it comes to
forcing different precision for arithmetic in C.  My thinking was that
since there was something that I knew worked before and was faster, I
should go with that.  I don't have an objection to this (or what Itzumi
posted), but is there a reason to not use the original code?

--Ken