Am Freitag, den 13.03.2015, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > [...]
> > > Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
> > > coming
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> [...]
> > Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
> > coming from?
> >
> > > And the lower
> > > abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better.
> >
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
[...]
Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
coming from?
And the lower
abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better.
Similarly,
Am Freitag, den 13.03.2015, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
[...]
Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
coming from?
Hi Stephen,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
[...]
> Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
> coming from?
>
> > And the lower
> > abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better.
>
> Similarly, where is this requirement coming from? Some
Hi Stephen,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
[...]
Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate
coming from?
And the lower
abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better.
Similarly, where is this requirement coming from? Some datasheet? Or is
On 03/09/15 16:34, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> If you see
>>>
>>> round_rate(110) = 108
>>>
>>> it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next
On 03/09/15 16:34, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
If you see
round_rate(110) = 108
it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available
greater rate is
Hello Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > If you see
> >
> > round_rate(110) = 108
> >
> > it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available
> > greater rate is > 112 or because the
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>
> If you see
>
> round_rate(110) = 108
>
> it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available
> greater rate is > 112 or because the implementation rounds down always
> (which would mean that 111 is possible, too). For the
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34)
> > On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > >>> Hello Mike,
> > >>>
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34)
> On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>> Hello Mike,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
>
Hello Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>> Hello Mike,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
>> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
>
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> >> Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> TLDR: only apply patch 1
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34)
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06,
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34)
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
Hello,
TLDR: only
Hello Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
If you see
round_rate(110) = 108
it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available
greater rate is 112 or because the implementation rounds down always
(which would mean that 111 is possible, too). For the easy
Hello Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
If you see
round_rate(110) = 108
it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available
greater rate is 112 or because the implementation
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:44:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote:
> >
> > Uwe,
> >
> > Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also
> > agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version
> > as well). That's
On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote:
>
> Uwe,
>
> Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also
> agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version
> as well). That's something we can do for 4.1 probably.
>
> There are currently 3 users of
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
>>>
>>> I stared at clk-divider.c for
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
> > Hello,
> >
> > TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
> >
> > I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
> >
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
> Hello,
>
> TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
>
> I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
> case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
> suspected).
>
> The
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
suspected).
The other two
On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote:
Uwe,
Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also
agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version
as well). That's something we can do for 4.1 probably.
There are currently 3 users of
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
case. I found a
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Mike,
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22)
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:44:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote:
Uwe,
Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also
agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version
as well). That's something we can
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
>
> I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
> case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
>
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
suspected).
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
suspected).
The other two patches fix problems only present when handling dividers
Hello,
TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
suspected).
The other two patches fix problems only present when handling dividers
36 matches
Mail list logo