Hi Mark,
On 1 February 2017 at 02:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:43:02AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> >> On 26 January
Hi Mark,
On 1 February 2017 at 02:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:43:02AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> >> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> > On
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:43:02AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> >> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:43:02AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> >> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> >> >> On
Hi Mark,
On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> >> On 25 January
Hi Mark,
On 31 January 2017 at 01:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> >> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> > On
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:49:59PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> > And because Linux kernel is running on Non-secure EL1, so should we
> > skip "SECURE" timer in Linux?
>
> I guess you mean by checking the GTx Common flags, to see if the
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:49:59PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> > And because Linux kernel is running on Non-secure EL1, so should we
> > skip "SECURE" timer in Linux?
>
> I guess you mean by checking the GTx Common flags, to see if the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> >> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:49:03PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> >> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>
Hi Mark, Christopher,
On 26 January 2017 at 01:36, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38:01AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
>> > On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> On
Hi Mark, Christopher,
On 26 January 2017 at 01:36, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38:01AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
>> > On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800,
Hi Mark,
On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800,
Hi Mark,
On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>> >> From: Fu Wei
>> >>
>> >>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38:01AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
> > On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> >>> From: Fu Wei
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38:01AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
> > On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> >>> From: Fu Wei
> > And for CNTFRQ(in CNTCTLBase and
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
Hi,
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> >> From: Fu Wei
> >>
> >> The counter frequency detection
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
Hi,
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> >> From: Fu Wei
> >>
> >> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
Hi Fu,
On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>> The counter frequency detection
Hi Fu,
On 01/25/2017 01:46 AM, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>>> ways to get
Hi Mark,
On 25 January 2017 at 14:46, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>> The counter frequency
Hi Mark,
On 25 January 2017 at 14:46, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>>> ways
Hi Mark,
On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>> ways to get counter
Hi Mark,
On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>> ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Fu Wei
>
> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
> ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
> But in a specific timer init code, we
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Fu Wei
>
> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
> ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
> But in a specific timer init code, we only need one way
On 2017/1/19 17:44, Fu Wei wrote:
Hi Hanjun,
On 19 January 2017 at 16:02, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Hi Fuwei,
One comments below.
On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
On 2017/1/19 17:44, Fu Wei wrote:
Hi Hanjun,
On 19 January 2017 at 16:02, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Hi Fuwei,
One comments below.
On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
ways to get counter frequency:
Hi Hanjun,
On 19 January 2017 at 16:02, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Fuwei,
>
> One comments below.
>
>
> On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>> ways
Hi Hanjun,
On 19 January 2017 at 16:02, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Fuwei,
>
> One comments below.
>
>
> On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>> ways to get counter frequency: system
Hi Fuwei,
One comments below.
On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
But in a specific timer init code,
Hi Fuwei,
One comments below.
On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
But in a specific timer init code, we only need one way
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
But in a specific timer init code, we only need one way to try:
getting frequency from MMIO timer register will be
From: Fu Wei
The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
But in a specific timer init code, we only need one way to try:
getting frequency from MMIO timer register will be needed only when we
34 matches
Mail list logo