On Sun 2016-07-03 17:54:31, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> > presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> > was going to bite us.
On Sun 2016-07-03 17:54:31, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> > presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> > was going to bite us.
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 08:49:45PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Right, so having read all your email, there's no reason why we couldn't
> > just print:
> >
> > cpu MHz : .999
>
> Since it is a float, how about
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 08:49:45PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Right, so having read all your email, there's no reason why we couldn't
> > just print:
> >
> > cpu MHz : .999
>
> Since it is a float, how about
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> > presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> > was going
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> > presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> > was going
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> was going to bite us. It is now biting us, and we will ensure that
> useless data is
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is
> presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this
> was going to bite us. It is now biting us, and we will ensure that
> useless data is
Hi Russell, Jon,
On 06/07/2016 06:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
>> Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
>> be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
>> ia64, and
Hi Russell, Jon,
On 06/07/2016 06:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
>> Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
>> be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
>> ia64, and
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
> > be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
> > ia64,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
> > be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
> > ia64,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
> be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
> ia64, and xtensa).
Such as what applications? This is just another meaningless number,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
> be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
> ia64, and xtensa).
Such as what applications? This is just another meaningless number,
Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
ia64, and xtensa). This can be trivially added by simply querying the
clock described in the CPU node of the device tree. It appears that
many of the
Many users (and some applications) are expecting the CPU clock speed to
be output in /proc/cpuinfo (as is done in x86, avr32, c6x, tile, parisc,
ia64, and xtensa). This can be trivially added by simply querying the
clock described in the CPU node of the device tree. It appears that
many of the
16 matches
Mail list logo
