On 07.03.2019 16:31, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:03:00PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
while true; do echo ""; echo -n
"CPU_FREQ0: "; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq;
echo -n "CPU_FREQ1: "; cat
/sys/devices/s
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:03:00PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> while true; do echo ""; echo -n
> "CPU_FREQ0: "; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq;
> echo -n "CPU_FREQ1: "; cat
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_fr
On 06.03.2019 08:36, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Yes, there might at least 2 scenarios:
1.) Frequency switching itself is the problem
But that code is also the one being used by the BananaPro, which you
reported as stable.
Yes, BananaPro is stable (with exactly same configuration as far as I
kno
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:21:02PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> > > > Run
> > > > https://github.com/ssvb/cpuburn-arm/blob/master/cpufreq-ljt-stress-test
> > > >
> > > > > But it doesn't explaing that it works with kernel 4.7.4 without any
> > > > > problems.
> > > > My best guess would be t
On 05.03.2019 10:28, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 01.03.2019 10:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:41:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 28.02.2019 10:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14P
On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> On 01.03.2019 10:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:41:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> > > On 28.02.2019 10:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger w
On 01.03.2019 10:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:41:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 28.02.2019 10:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 27.02.2019 10:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57A
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:41:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> On 28.02.2019 10:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> > > On 27.02.2019 10:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger w
On 28.02.2019 10:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 27.02.2019 10:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
Hello,
I've 3 Banana Pi R1, one running with self compiled kernel
4.7.4-200
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> On 27.02.2019 10:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've 3 Banana Pi R1, one running with self compiled kernel
> > > 4.7.4-200.BPiR1.fc24.armv7
On 27.02.2019 10:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
Hello,
I've 3 Banana Pi R1, one running with self compiled kernel
4.7.4-200.BPiR1.fc24.armv7hl and old Fedora 25 which is VERY STABLE, the 2
others are running with Fedora 29 latest, ker
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've 3 Banana Pi R1, one running with self compiled kernel
> 4.7.4-200.BPiR1.fc24.armv7hl and old Fedora 25 which is VERY STABLE, the 2
> others are running with Fedora 29 latest, kernel 4.20.10-200.fc29.armv7hl. I
> t
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:04:57AM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> I guess it has something to do with virtual memory.
No, it's a NULL pointer dereference in the voltage regulator code.
Nothing to do with virtual memory.
13 matches
Mail list logo