On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:43:56 +0100
Jaap de Jong wrote:
> thanks for your reply.
> You are right, the format was totally wrong; I apologize!
> Concerning the patch itself: I agree: low-level hangups should trigger
> the watchdog although in this specific case the hangups will not occur
> due to a
thanks for your reply.
You are right, the format was totally wrong; I apologize!
Concerning the patch itself: I agree: low-level hangups should trigger
the watchdog although in this specific case the hangups will not occur
due to a timeout construction surrounding it.
Unfortunately I'm not able t
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:16:59 -0600
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:05:55 +0100
> Jaap de Jong wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > On my board (at91sam9263ek) I have enabled the watchdog.
> > It will reset the processor after about 16 seconds.
> > It looks like it is working but if I'm writing a
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:05:55 +0100
Jaap de Jong wrote:
> Hi all,
> On my board (at91sam9263ek) I have enabled the watchdog.
> It will reset the processor after about 16 seconds.
> It looks like it is working but if I'm writing a large file into nand it
> seems that the watchdog is not reset and
Hi all,
On my board (at91sam9263ek) I have enabled the watchdog.
It will reset the processor after about 16 seconds.
It looks like it is working but if I'm writing a large file into nand it
seems that the watchdog is not reset and finally my processor resets.
I've patched it, but I'm not sure if i
5 matches
Mail list logo