On 17/04/2020 19:34, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> OK I would prefer to have it close a ticket on 5.1 that addresses the
> fact it was a latent bug. I'm not sure how to feel about having
> commits made prior to cutting a release, that update tickets for
> milestones after the release. I suppose it is just
OK I would prefer to have it close a ticket on 5.1 that addresses the
fact it was a latent bug. I'm not sure how to feel about having
commits made prior to cutting a release, that update tickets for
milestones after the release. I suppose it is just a minor annoyance
to me.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020
Hello Gedare,
On 16/04/2020 21:16, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> You can push this to 5.1, update the ticket milestone if you do.
Thanks. In that case I most likely should create an extra ticket. I'm
not sure whether Sebastian sees that one as close enough to finished to
be a 5.1 ticket. For me it was a
You can push this to 5.1, update the ticket milestone if you do.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 16/04/2020 15:29, Christian Mauderer wrote:
> > _CPU_Counter_frequency() can be called by the rtems_counter
> > initialization before arm_gt_clock_initialize()
On 16/04/2020 15:29, Christian Mauderer wrote:
_CPU_Counter_frequency() can be called by the rtems_counter
initialization before arm_gt_clock_initialize() initializes the value
used in _CPU_Counter_frequency().
Update #3456.
Thanks, looks good.
___
_CPU_Counter_frequency() can be called by the rtems_counter
initialization before arm_gt_clock_initialize() initializes the value
used in _CPU_Counter_frequency().
Update #3456.
---
bsps/arm/shared/clock/clock-generic-timer.c | 14 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
