On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 05:20:25PM +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>
> > On 8 Sep 2019, at 23:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> I suppose it would be good to change it to the same structure as the feed
> >> forward clock stuff, that way it is much easier to change the number of
> >> hands
> On 8 Sep 2019, at 23:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> I suppose it would be good to change it to the same structure as the feed
>> forward clock stuff, that way it is much easier to change the number of
>> hands at compile time..
>>
>
> The reason to not increase it by default is the
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 09:18:59AM +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Aug 2019, at 11:37, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 19 Aug 2019, at 17:09, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> >> I am going to try this diff but buildkernel is going to take a while...
> >
> > Was a lot
> On 20 Aug 2019, at 11:37, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 19 Aug 2019, at 17:09, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>> I am going to try this diff but buildkernel is going to take a while...
>
> Was a lot faster cross building, so I installed it this morning:
> [gps 1:56] ~ >uname -a
> FreeBSD
> On 19 Aug 2019, at 17:09, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> I am going to try this diff but buildkernel is going to take a while...
Was a lot faster cross building, so I installed it this morning:
[gps 1:56] ~ >uname -a
FreeBSD gps 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #1
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:26 AM Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 17:09 +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> > > On 12 Aug 2019, at 09:09, O'Connor, Daniel
> > > wrote:
> > > > always get lost on single-core processors which are in cpu_idle()
> > > > at
> > > > the time the hardclock
On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 17:09 +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> > On 12 Aug 2019, at 09:09, O'Connor, Daniel
> > wrote:
> > > always get lost on single-core processors which are in cpu_idle()
> > > at
> > > the time the hardclock interrupt happens. (But that's fixable by
> > > just
> > > increasing
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 00:12, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 15:28 +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>>> Most people are not worried about their kernel clock being 200
>>> microseconds off from UTC, even if they're using the PPS signal from a
>>> GPS receiver. So I think most people
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 15:28 +0930, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Firstly, this is a very cool test - thank you for running it :)
>
> > On 3 Aug 2019, at 06:46, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > PPS(2) is an FTDI 232R, a USB 1.1 serial adapter, connected to a port
> > on a USB 2.0 hub that's
Hi Ian,
Firstly, this is a very cool test - thank you for running it :)
> On 3 Aug 2019, at 06:46, Ian Lepore wrote:
> PPS(2) is an FTDI 232R, a USB 1.1 serial adapter, connected to a port
> on a USB 2.0 hub that's connected to a USB 2.0 host port on the
> Wandboard.
>
> PPS(3) is an FTDI
Since we added support for accepting a PPS signal on a USB-serial
adapter a couple years ago, I've seen people express reluctance to use
it several times. Usually they cite concerns about latency and
jitter. I decided it was time to do some rigorous testing, and post
the results.
Complete
11 matches
Mail list logo
