Achim Gratz via devel writes:
> The main problem at the moment is that the zero-TC temperature point
> is just beyond the first thermal threshold hardwired into the kernel
> for the TinkerBoard, so I can't keep the temperature high enough.
I've resolved that problem by compressing the hardwired te
Achim Gratz via devel writes:
> I've switched the TinkerBoard to PPS and starting to collect PPS
> statistics. Everything looks pretty good so far, I've also started
> ovenizing the XTAL, but it will be some time before I get enough
> statistics to extract the parameters from for a proper control
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:10:42 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> >> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
> > Yes, I understood you, but all that does is lead to combintarorial
> > excess.
>
> It also reduces bloat.
Many other, easier, better, ways to reduce bloat.
But si
>> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
> Yes, I understood you, but all that does is lead to combintarorial excess.
It also reduces bloat.
All refclocks is close to double the file size. (I don't know how that
translates into actual memory usage after code gets loaded. str
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:42:50 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> >> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
> > The all and not all case do get a lot of testing.
>
> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
Yes, I understood you, but all that does is
>> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
> The all and not all case do get a lot of testing.
By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@nt
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:24:25 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
>
> No great reason. I got started that way ages ago.
So why should we work to allow pointless things?
> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case
> Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
No great reason. I got started that way ages ago.
It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
I think we should be able to build non-bloat systems, or at least
minimal-bloat. This seems like a good step in that dir
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:34:49 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Why not build with all the refclocks? That is not a well tested
> > way to configure NTPsec.
>
> I regularly test/run with only the refclocks I plan to use.
Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
NTPsec has
> Why not build with all the refclocks? That is not a well tested way to
> configure NTPsec.
I regularly test/run with only the refclocks I plan to use.
I admit I haven't tested the SHM only case. If it doesn't work, we should
fix it.
> Nothing in ntpd.log of interest WRT shm/pps/gps
>> N
Achim Gratz via devel writes:
> [resent and expanded, the original posting did not make it to Gmane NNTP]
The missing postings have belatedly appeared on Gmane now, so it seems
to have been a hiccup somewhere between the listserver and Gmane or on
Gmane itself.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-1
[resent and expanded, the original posting did not make it to Gmane NNTP]
Achim Gratz via devel writes:
> Still no sign of PPS via GPIO, I might try Armbian later to see if it's
> available there since I don't need the GPU and WLAN anyway. I've
Some kind soul read this and sent me some hints on
Achim Gratz via devel writes:
> Still no sign of PPS via GPIO, I might try Armbian later to see if it's
> available there since I don't need the GPU and WLAN anyway.
Some kind soul read this and sent me some hints on how to compile a
kernel that has PPS enabled. Just creating the node in the devi
13 matches
Mail list logo
