Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

On 22/01/16 19:20, Marcos Díaz wrote: Ok, I'm testing this, but I'm having one problem: When I compile my example for testing the timer, I ran out of ROM memory... for 42456 bytes This commit is from the trunk? because the last time we tested in 4.11 it worked OK, and that seems a lot of spa

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

Ok, I'm testing this, but I'm having one problem: When I compile my example for testing the timer, I ran out of ROM memory... for 42456 bytes This commit is from the trunk? because the last time we tested in 4.11 it worked OK, and that seems a lot of space incremented. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

On 21/01/16 14:50, Daniel Gutson wrote: El 21/1/2016 10:08, "Sebastian Huber" > escribió: > > On 21/01/16 14:04, Marcos Díaz wrote: >> >> Just a question, isn't this hardware counter used for debugging? This won't cause us any problem for debuggin

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

El 21/1/2016 10:08, "Sebastian Huber" escribió: > > On 21/01/16 14:04, Marcos Díaz wrote: >> >> Just a question, isn't this hardware counter used for debugging? This won't cause us any problem for debugging? > > > Why should it cause problems? Beside any problem, how this affects debugging since

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

I haven't fully read the datasheet, but isn't the purpose of this module to be used by a debugger? Isn't there a risk that debugging hardware will mess with this hardware? On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 21/01/16 14:04, Marcos Dí

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

On 21/01/16 14:04, Marcos Díaz wrote: Just a question, isn't this hardware counter used for debugging? This won't cause us any problem for debugging? Why should it cause problems? -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

Hi, Martin isn't here, but I will test it just give me some time. Just a question, isn't this hardware counter used for debugging? This won't cause us any problem for debugging? On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Hello Martin, > > On 14

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

Hello Martin, On 14/01/16 14:44, Martin Galvan wrote: We've tested it and so far it's working fine. I checked in the patch and in addition added support for the DWT CYCCNT as an alternative timecounter (it was 25% faster on a Cortex-M7). Would you mind testing this in your environment? htt

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

On 14/01/16 14:44, Martin Galvan wrote: Thanks a lot for this patch. We've tested it and so far it's working fine. Ok, I have to build all BSPs before I can check it in. However we have a couple of questions: 1) Is there a reason why you're using the ARMV7M_Timecounter struct instead of si

Re: [PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

Thanks a lot for this patch. We've tested it and so far it's working fine. However we have a couple of questions: 1) Is there a reason why you're using the ARMV7M_Timecounter struct instead of simply having a global boolean like we did in our patch? That pointer casting trick seems a bit unsafe.

[PATCH v3] score: Fix simple timecounter support

Update #2502. --- .../arm/shared/armv7m/clock/armv7m-clock-config.c | 51 -- c/src/lib/libbsp/m68k/mcf52235/clock/clock.c | 19 c/src/lib/libbsp/m68k/mcf5225x/clock/clock.c | 19 c/src/lib/libbsp/m68k/mcf5329/clock/clock.c| 19 c/