On 29 March 2017 at 22:41, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:11:58PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
>> > Hi Daniel,
>> >
>> > Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your
On 29 March 2017 at 22:41, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:11:58PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
>> > Hi Daniel,
>> >
>> > Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
>> >
>> > On 28 March 2017 at
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:11:58PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
> >
> > On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:11:58PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
> >
> > On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at
Hi Daniel,
On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
>
> On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800,
Hi Daniel,
On 29 March 2017 at 11:41, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
>
> On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>>
Hi Daniel,
Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> Currently, the counter
Hi Daniel,
Great thanks for your review, allow me to answer your question below:
On 28 March 2017 at 22:58, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei
>>
>> Currently, the counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Fu Wei
>
> Currently, the counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
> includes getting the frequency from the device-tree property, the per-cpu
> arch-timer and the memory-mapped (MMIO)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:31:13AM +0800, fu@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Fu Wei
>
> Currently, the counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
> includes getting the frequency from the device-tree property, the per-cpu
> arch-timer and the memory-mapped (MMIO) timer interfaces.
>
From: Fu Wei
Currently, the counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
includes getting the frequency from the device-tree property, the per-cpu
arch-timer and the memory-mapped (MMIO) timer interfaces.
But reading device-tree property will be needed only when
From: Fu Wei
Currently, the counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate)
includes getting the frequency from the device-tree property, the per-cpu
arch-timer and the memory-mapped (MMIO) timer interfaces.
But reading device-tree property will be needed only when system boot with
12 matches
Mail list logo