Hi Will,
On 05/08/2013 05:06 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:48:26PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 05:08 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> That seems like a lot of effort in order to preserve something that isn't
>>> even meaningful. We m
Hello Christopher,
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:48:26PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 05:08 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > That seems like a lot of effort in order to preserve something that isn't
> > even meaningful. We might be better just zeroing the value, but then we'll
> > in
On 05/07/2013 05:08 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:01:23PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On 05/03/2013 01:35 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This small patch set may look a little over a month late, but there is a
>>> serious reason for postin
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:01:23PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> On 05/03/2013 01:35 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This small patch set may look a little over a month late, but there is a
> > serious reason for posting it.
> >
> > When I moved the ARM delay loop
Hi Will,
On 05/03/2013 01:35 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This small patch set may look a little over a month late, but there is a
> serious reason for posting it.
>
> When I moved the ARM delay loop over to using the architected timers
> rather than the CPU spinning loop (which has all
5 matches
Mail list logo
