Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Jul 2019 01:02:41 +0300
From:      Stefan Parvu <sparvu@kronometrix.org>
To:        freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Rasclock (PCF2127 ) Hardware Clock FreeBSD 12.0
Message-ID:  <F96F1DA7-DAF1-4CAF-B1CD-764EB10C8157@kronometrix.org>
In-Reply-To: <4707336cb7d4cdd8dbd2070a9e799f12bff59fcc.camel@freebsd.org>
References:  <41A4CA5C-B487-490F-8A19-2D51F43E1004@kronometrix.org> <95616620-bbaf-dbc3-49eb-3e2562638d49@bunyatech.com.au> <AB510253-52D9-469C-B06E-5EC73C5F188E@kronometrix.org> <fd9991c4e6aaccb812a59ff86c9c8564ebd1d767.camel@freebsd.org> <74E3E782-8481-4B5B-A0AF-A04590C27D6D@kronometrix.org> <790afcb5f0809a89b45982958a85f1539fec05c7.camel@freebsd.org> <36088812-2135-4433-BC49-0BC433EC6767@kronometrix.org> <c52f9d9ab358ac0dc09af411bf97625945579b4e.camel@freebsd.org> <86CC4711-47AC-45C6-B6D3-71C9FFDD4A91@kronometrix.org> <BE321299-8569-4B2E-98FD-FD5210E1B6AF@kronometrix.org> <A9FD7D2B-9382-4EAE-B245-5F4DE643DBB7@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <C93E2C64-6280-464D-AB5F-B1E968690CEF@kronometrix.org> <2ec7d7f63de31065b9cab396c662fe24f0107078.camel@freebsd.org> <BD0BE075-9E69-4CB0-826A-5DF2D160E9B1@kronometrix.org> <d71fc4e3db26242ffa817814d6cd92b8899fc2ab.camel@freebsd.org> <EF94BC84-4B8D-455C-952F-4FD1CC5557CE@kronometrix.org> <2AC05799-7D11-4200-8D16-38E3718470BB@kronometrix.org> <91E26684-07A0-4F03-92BC-8D49359B1358@kronometrix.org> <4707336cb7d4cdd8dbd2070a9e799f12bff59fcc.camel@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>=20
> The spurious interrupt problems are fixed with this patch (it isn't
> really a problem, the patch just disables the messages):
> =
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/arm/broadcom/bcm2835/bcm2835_intr=
.c?r1=3D332262&r2=3D346489&view=3Dpatch =
<https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/arm/broadcom/bcm2835/bcm2835_int=
r.c?r1=3D332262&r2=3D346489&view=3Dpatch>


Thanks. I can live with these.=20

> My RasClock battery had gone dead too.  It was no more than 2 years =
old
> at the most, but the rasclock was running on battery all that time
> (until it died), because I almost never power on the rpi boards.  I
> think the rasclock may use more battery power than some other rtc
> boards because the chip it uses is more accurate than most.  Part of
> how it does that is to use a temperature-compensated oscillator, but
> that means it uses extra power to measure the temperature.

Right. Now it makes sense. I was wondering is this chip using more =
battery
than others ? Looks like. And maybe my batteries I bought might not have =
been
very good. I need to test other models.=20

Thanks a lot for help.

Stefan=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F96F1DA7-DAF1-4CAF-B1CD-764EB10C8157>