On 21 June 2016 at 11:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 21/06/16 18:05, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2016 at 08:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>> etm4_trace_id is not guaranteed to be executed on the CPU whose ETM is
>>> being accessed. This leads to exception similar to below one if the
On 21/06/16 18:05, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On 20 June 2016 at 08:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
etm4_trace_id is not guaranteed to be executed on the CPU whose ETM is
being accessed. This leads to exception similar to below one if the
CPU whose ETM is being accessed is in deeper idle states. So it mu
On 20 June 2016 at 08:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> etm4_trace_id is not guaranteed to be executed on the CPU whose ETM is
> being accessed. This leads to exception similar to below one if the
> CPU whose ETM is being accessed is in deeper idle states. So it must
> be executed on the CPU whose ETM is
3 matches
Mail list logo