On 15/09/2021 17:30, Gedare Bloom wrote:
No. I'm more worried about boot time. :)
Would a few milliseconds be acceptable?
Is there any way to poll?
I'm not totally clear on the boot vs secondary processor
initialization sequence, and how closely they need to synchronize at
this stage.
What
; > To: Sommer, Jan
> > > Cc: devel@rtems.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] bsps/riscv: Give enough time for clock driver
> > > initialization
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:47 AM Jan Sommer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -
Sorry, for digging out this old patch.
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:57 PM wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gedare Bloom
> > Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:00 PM
> > To: Sommer, Jan
> > Cc: devel@rtems.org
> > Subject: Re: [PAT
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:57 PM wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gedare Bloom
> > Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:00 PM
> > To: Sommer, Jan
> > Cc: devel@rtems.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] bsps/riscv: Give enough time for clock drive
> -Original Message-
> From: Gedare Bloom
> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:00 PM
> To: Sommer, Jan
> Cc: devel@rtems.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] bsps/riscv: Give enough time for clock driver
> initialization
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:47 AM Jan Sommer wr
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:47 AM Jan Sommer wrote:
>
> - Clock driver initialization for secondary cores had to take less than
> one tick
> - If tick time is small (i.e. <= 1ms) setting up all cores could take
> too long and a fatal error is thrown.
> - Give at least 10 ms time for clock initializat
