On Friday, May 08, 2015 at 06:40:22 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 10:31 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, May 08, 2015 at 06:03:34 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 05/06/2015 12:13 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> [
On 05/08/2015 10:31 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Friday, May 08, 2015 at 06:03:34 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/06/2015 12:13 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
big-i
On Friday, May 08, 2015 at 06:03:34 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/06/2015 12:13 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
> > big-ish, diff will beco
On Friday, May 08, 2015 at 06:06:41 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
> > * Obtain lease
> > * Transfer kernel, dtb, ramdisk without stalling/timing out
> > * Do this 10 times in a row with a power cycle in between
> >
> > Hope this help clarify the situation in some way,
>
> OK, but if you apply
On 05/06/2015 01:51 PM, Tyler Baker wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 11:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
big-ish, diff will become negative and this udelay() will not perfor
On 05/06/2015 12:13 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
big-ish, diff will become negative and this udelay() will not perform
the correct delay, right ?
I don't believ
On 6 May 2015 at 11:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> [...]
>> >>> So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
>> >>> big-ish, diff will become negative and this udelay() will not perform
>> >>> the correct delay, r
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 05:52:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
> >>> So, if now is close to 0x7fff (which it can), then if endtime is
> >>> big-ish, diff will become negative and this udelay() will not perform
> >>> the correct delay, right ?
> >>
> >> I don't believe so, no.
> >>
> >
On 05/05/2015 05:37 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:57:54 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2015 04:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:37:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2015 04:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:57:54 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 04:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:37:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 05/05/2015 04:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:56 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >
On 05/05/2015 04:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:37:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2015 04:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:56 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/04/2015 02:54 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Switch to generic timer implementati
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 at 12:37:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 04:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:56 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 05/04/2015 02:54 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Switch to generic timer implementation from lib/time.c .
> >>> This
On 05/05/2015 04:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:56 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/04/2015 02:54 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Switch to generic timer implementation from lib/time.c .
This also fixes a signed overflow which was in __udelay()
implementation.
Can you expla
On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 at 11:46:56 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 02:54 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Switch to generic timer implementation from lib/time.c .
> > This also fixes a signed overflow which was in __udelay()
> > implementation.
>
> Can you explain that a bit more?
>
> > -vo
On 05/04/2015 02:54 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Switch to generic timer implementation from lib/time.c .
This also fixes a signed overflow which was in __udelay()
implementation.
Can you explain that a bit more?
-void __udelay(unsigned long usec)
-{
- ulong endtime;
- signed long diff;
Switch to generic timer implementation from lib/time.c .
This also fixes a signed overflow which was in __udelay()
implementation.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
Cc: Stephen Warren
Cc: Tyler Baker
---
arch/arm/mach-bcm283x/Makefile | 2 +-
arch/arm/mach-bcm283x/timer.c | 58 -
16 matches
Mail list logo
