On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:45:31AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2019 00:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
> > very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
> > apparently incorrect) to query the
18.07.2019 12:53, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 18/07/2019 10:45, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 08/07/2019 00:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
>>> very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
>>> apparently
18.07.2019 12:45, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 08/07/2019 00:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
>> very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
>> apparently incorrect) to query the clock's rate with interrupts
On 18/07/2019 10:45, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2019 00:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
>> very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
>> apparently incorrect) to query the clock's rate with
On 08/07/2019 00:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
> very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
> apparently incorrect) to query the clock's rate with interrupts being
> disabled because clk_get_rate()
The PCLK clock is running off SCLK, which is a critical clock that is
very unlikely to randomly change its rate. It's also a bit clumsy (and
apparently incorrect) to query the clock's rate with interrupts being
disabled because clk_get_rate() takes a mutex and that's the case during
6 matches
Mail list logo