[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SMTC support status in latest git head.

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Subject: Re: SMTC support status in latest git head.
From: Anoop P A <>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:35:37 +0530
Cc: STUART VENTERS <>, "Anoop P.A." <>,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h1Tr5WXw5F8OYHT8qu4gqNA0GgqEWvOePQ6iTG411MU=; b=qADD8E9Bm1fJgObsem0mQ5ZlYcbx96BZcavVByW1JvMHLdBMETTVLoXc+q/hHIow4E zP4L2vDm5MAGbPF9Am7Z4wcvYt03T/wlvUEzHsa9S8FAuNCLUNIbIn1oTXSHidI2mLEr IDiuXFRPEY11ZsFkXa040imAegW2qMJ5iql9c=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=a8lr6krEtwINMSpfepHTtl+/OI/husC7qmU4sb+K2Z52ZtFTFQ7DZejvuQsQGvfmyi JvbRDHK7EJI26LsEDM2Cn0fnYjm5i6/pWqL+yxLGHQseZrJ2s9IULvsmJf0xruWjrb5a RAD+H3jxvxreyXSZWYL3Z1C9P4KSKonvFJa2o=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <1293470392.27661.202.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <1293524389.27661.210.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1293798476.27661.279.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294067561.27661.293.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294082426.27661.330.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294146165.27661.361.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <1294151822.27661.375.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294163657.27661.386.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294233097.27661.391.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294345396.27661.422.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294387019.27661.458.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Kevin D. Kissell <> wrote:
> Would this still be with a "tickful" kernel?  I was able to run some
> experiments on a Malta over the weekend, using mostly default
> Malta defconfig options including tickless operation.  The
> build comes up with both VPEs and all TCs firing. with
> the stackframe.h patch boots all the way up on a single VPE, but
> VERY slowly - as if the Clock/Compare setups weren't being done
> correctly and timer intervals were waiting the full Count register
> rollover cycle.  I've been looking at diffs, and merged one change
> that was made to cevt-r4k.c into the analogous routine in cevt-smtc.c
> (no change), but there's clearly more breakage to the SMTC/Malta
> configuration post-2.6.32 than just the stackframe.h patch.  Going
> tickful may work around it, but tickful+SMTC is grossly inefficient.

Yes that is true my configuration is using tickful . I had reported this
issue with tickless kernel . I think you missed my last email. I will

>            Regards,
>            Kevin K.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>