![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:08:56AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:20:22PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > > > 5/5 - hpet5.patch - This can be a standalone patch. Without this > > > patch we loose interrupt generation capability > > > of RTC (/dev/rtc), due to HPET. With this patch > > > we basically try to emulate RTC interrupt > > > functions in software using HPET counter 1. > > > > > > > This is very wrong IMO. We shouldn't try to emulate the RTC interrupt > > for the kernel, instead the HPET should use native APIC interrupt > > routing. > > Even on those machines where APIC interrupts are not usable? > (E.g. due to interactions with the SMM BIOS). Well, I suspect the machines with HPET should better have usable APIC interrupts, because you won't be able to use all the HPET timers then - only two can be routed via the timer and RTC interrupts, the other need to use APIC or direct FSB delivery. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||