Hi Graeme,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 13/09/11 21:52, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Graeme,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Sa
Hi Simon,
On 13/09/11 21:52, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Graeme,
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
On 1 September 2011 00:
Hi Graeme,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>> On 1 September 2011 00:53, Andrew Murray wrote:
>
>>
>> This patch touches on G
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
>> On 1 September 2011 00:53, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>>
>
> This patch touches on Graeme's initcall patch. If board_init_r were
> just a list of function pointers
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On 1 September 2011 00:53, Andrew Murray wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I will assume that we have a microsecond timer, update my patch and
>> > resubmit so you can take a look and see what you think. Hopefully we
>> > can unify this, your
On 1 September 2011 00:53, Andrew Murray wrote:
> >
> > I will assume that we have a microsecond timer, update my patch and
> > resubmit so you can take a look and see what you think. Hopefully we
> > can unify this, your patch and the boot_progress stuff.
>
> Excellent! OK, well I will await the
On 1 September 2011 00:39, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any cross over between my approach and what is
>>> planned/already been done?
>>>
>
> Don't worry - your contribution is very welcome!
>
> Yes I think there is cross-over, and perhaps the right approach is to
> try to merge them someho
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
>> On 1 September 2011 00:12, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On 1 September 2011 00:12, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 18:20:54 Andrew Murray wrote:
This patchset introduces the CONFIG_BOOT_
On 1 September 2011 00:12, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 18:20:54 Andrew Murray wrote:
>>> This patchset introduces the CONFIG_BOOT_TRACE option which provides
>>> support for boot time instrumentation.
>>
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 18:20:54 Andrew Murray wrote:
>> This patchset introduces the CONFIG_BOOT_TRACE option which provides
>> support for boot time instrumentation.
>>
>> When enabled printf output is prefixed with timing
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 18:20:54 Andrew Murray wrote:
> This patchset introduces the CONFIG_BOOT_TRACE option which provides
> support for boot time instrumentation.
>
> When enabled printf output is prefixed with timing information (similar to
> the kernel's CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME option) and a
This patchset introduces the CONFIG_BOOT_TRACE option which provides support
for boot time instrumentation.
When enabled printf output is prefixed with timing information (similar to the
kernel's CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME option) and additional output is generated which
instruments functions and commands
13 matches
Mail list logo
