On Thu, 1/5/17, fullergita via rtc-linux wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 6:08 AM
On Thu, 1/5/17,
On Thu, 1/5/17, bishopcharles556 via rtc-linux
wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 5:55 AM
On Thu, 1
On Thu, 1/5/17, stevegreen472 via rtc-linux wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 2:52 AM
On Thu, 1/5/1
On Thu, 1/5/17, denniseburnett via rtc-linux wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 2:06 AM
On Thu, 1/5/
On Thu, 1/5/17, bret.ng via rtc-linux wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 12:40 AM
On Wed, 1/4/17, Al
On Wed, 1/4/17, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: Add support for RX4035
To: "Ryan Jones"
Cc: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2017, 11:57 PM
Hi,
Sorry for the late review!
On 05/08/2016
On 20/12/2016 at 09:42:44 +0100, Fabien Lahoudere wrote :
> Remove spinlock and use the "rtc->ops_lock" from RTC subsystem instead.
> spin_lock_irqsave() is not needed here because we do not have hard IRQs.
>
> This patch fixes the following issue:
>
> root@GE004097290448 b850v3:~# hwclock --syst
Hi,
Sorry for the late review!
On 05/08/2016 at 11:54:36 -0600, Ryan Jones wrote :
> + * Based on:
> + * drivers/rtc/rtc-rx4581.c
I'd argue that it doesn't really matter ;)
> +#define RX4035_REG_SC0x00 /* Second in BCD */
> +#define RX4035_REG_MN0x01 /* Minute in
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
>> preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
>> rather than use __ro_after
*الدار العربية للتنمية الإدارية*
*بالتعاون مع الإتحاد الدولى لمؤسسات التنمية البشرية*
*الدورة التدريبية *
*تكنولوجيا الإدارة الذكية *
*التحول من الإدارة الإلكترونية الى الإدارة الذكية *
*إدارة المستقبل والخدمات الذكية *
*دبى – الامارات العربية المتحدة *
*)**Smart technology management)*
*خل
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
> > preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
> > rather than use __ro_after_init.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
> preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
> rather than use __ro_after_init. Perhaps if the structure were larger,
> then __ro_after_init w
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:43:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > The question was whether the point to the rtc_class_ops could be made
> > > __ro_after_init. And Russell is right, it is pointed to by the ops
> > > pointer in a struct rtc_d
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:43:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The question was whether the point to the rtc_class_ops could be made
> > __ro_after_init. And Russell is right, it is pointed to by the ops
> > pointer in a struct rtc_device and that struct is dynamically allocated
> > in rtc_devic
> The question was whether the point to the rtc_class_ops could be made
> __ro_after_init. And Russell is right, it is pointed to by the ops
> pointer in a struct rtc_device and that struct is dynamically allocated
> in rtc_device_register().
OK, I think it's a terminology issue. You mean the str
On 04/01/2017 at 11:57:00 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote :
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06 AM,
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016
17 matches
Mail list logo