On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:35:25AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
> > read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
> > bits are reset to 0 after the
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
> read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
> bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
>
> The reason why this is
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:35:25AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual
On 12/19/13 15:28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
> read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
> bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
>
> The reason why this is required
On 12/19/13 15:28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required like
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required like this to work, is that read-back of
the register removes
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
> read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
> bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
>
> The reason why this is
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required like this to work, is that read-back of
the register removes
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required like this to work, is that read-back of
the register removes
The purpose of reg_se_cache has been defeated. It should avoid the
read-back of the register to avoid the latency and the fact that the
bits are reset to 0 after the individual conversation took place.
The reason why this is required like this to work, is that read-back of
the register removes
12 matches
Mail list logo
