On 01/22/2014 09:08 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:03 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
be fixed.
Please, ignore this patch.
There is a 31-bit counter in CPU local
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:03 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
>
> According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
> of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
> be fixed.
Please, ignore this patch.
There is a 31-bit counter in CPU local timers; however,
FRC (free running
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:03 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
be fixed.
Please, ignore this patch.
There is a 31-bit counter in CPU local timers; however,
FRC (free running
On 01/22/2014 09:08 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:03 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
be fixed.
Please, ignore this patch.
There is a 31-bit counter in CPU local
According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/samsung,exynos4210-mct.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
According to the datasheet of Exynos SoCs, the counter bit
of CPU local timers is 31-bit, not 32-bit; thus, it should
be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han jg1@samsung.com
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/samsung,exynos4210-mct.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
6 matches
Mail list logo
