Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/02/14 04:02, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
>> low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
>> the persistent clock instead of RTC.
>>
>> While
On 04/02/14 04:02, Lei Wen wrote:
> Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
> low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
> the persistent clock instead of RTC.
>
> While read_persistent_clock calling place shall be rare, like only
>
Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
the persistent clock instead of RTC.
While read_persistent_clock calling place shall be rare, like only
suspend/resume place? So we shall don't care for its
Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
the persistent clock instead of RTC.
While read_persistent_clock calling place shall be rare, like only
suspend/resume place? So we shall don't care for its
On 04/02/14 04:02, Lei Wen wrote:
Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
the persistent clock instead of RTC.
While read_persistent_clock calling place shall be rare, like only
suspend/resume
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 04/02/14 04:02, Lei Wen wrote:
Since arm's arch_timer's counter would keep accumulated even in the
low power mode, including suspend state, it is very suitable to be
the persistent clock instead of RTC.
6 matches
Mail list logo