Plus not all machines have a physical RTC chip.
If you want periodic interrupt emulation on those you need a patch [1],
but that just generates a software interrupt. That would suffer from a
change in HZ value AFAIK.
--
Martin
[1]
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, fons adriaensen wrote:
[ Paul Davis ]
no, to make everyone happy we need the High Res Timer patch. that avoids
the stupidity of a fixed HZ, which is so early '90s that its
embarrassing.
Agreed 100%. I just wonder about the availability of the required
chip on
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 23:10 +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
I wonder why /dev/rtc isn't used more than it is now.
Because sleep/wakeup, poll, etc are much nicer interfaces than /dev/rtc.
Lee
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 17:18 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 23:10 +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
I wonder why /dev/rtc isn't used more than it is now.
Because sleep/wakeup, poll, etc are much nicer interfaces than /dev/rtc.
any sane programmer will use slee/wakeup,
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 17:37 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 17:18 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 23:10 +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
I wonder why /dev/rtc isn't used more than it is now.
Because sleep/wakeup, poll, etc are much nicer interfaces
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:38:37AM +0300, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
Quoting Eric Dantan Rzewnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm confused ... most of us build our own kernels or use kernels built
by Fernando or Free. Why can't kernels just be built with the config
option set to 1000?
Free? It's my
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:30:11PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 15:17, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:20:20PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:42 -0400, Eric
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:27, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:31 +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:49:11 -0400
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct, it's not an issue for apps driven by hardware interrupts like
JACK, because the sound
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:20:20PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:42 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
What is driving the kernel-devs to regress on this issue?
Saving battery on laptops. The only performance
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 15:17, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:20:20PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:42 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
What is driving the kernel-devs to regress on this
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:17 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:20:20PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:42 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
What is driving the kernel-devs to regress on
[ Fernando Lopez-Lezcano ]
So, worst case scheduling would seem to me to be around 0.32 msec (ie: I
want the message to be sent at time t+/-320 usec).
If you want jitter-free MIDI clock, that is absolutely correct. OTOH,
I often wondered why MIDI interfaces are not designed to work in the
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 16:06, fons adriaensen wrote:
[ Fernando Lopez-Lezcano ]
So, worst case scheduling would seem to me to be around 0.32 msec (ie: I
want the message to be sent at time t+/-320 usec).
If you want jitter-free MIDI clock, that is absolutely correct. OTOH,
I often
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 01:06 +0200, fons adriaensen wrote:
Agreed 100%. I just wonder about the availability of the required
chip on mainstream motherboards. My machine (2 years old now) doesn't
have it, as far as I'm able to find out. Does anyone have more
visibility on this ?
I guess
14 matches
Mail list logo
