![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:29:44AM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote: > >JFYI: The new per-cpu timekeeping code doesn't need the HPET legacy bit, > >thus not replacing IRQ0 (PIT) and IRQ13 (RTC). It still can do that, but > >will work just as well without it. > There seems to be lot of confusion here. Current code isn't using hpet > as tick source if legacy is not supported. This patch adds > hpet_lrr_force but it's not clear how it interacts with hpet_use_timer - > in some places it is hpet_use_timer and some (hpet_use_timer && > hpet_lrr_force). Sorry about my share of confusion introduced: Jiri Bohac (jbohac@suse.cz) is currently working on a new timekeeping code for x86-64 that takes a significantly different approach that allows for precise and fast gettimeofday even on CPUs with unsynchronized TSCs. This rewrite depends even less on hpet_use_timer than the current code. The current code can cope with hpet_use_timer == 0, but that mode of operation is far from optimal. > The timer is routed to ioapic pin 2 which is irq0 with source override. > With this patch with hpet_lrr_force=1 timer irq is set to 2 for x86_64 > and 0 for i386, that can't be right? It doesn't seem right to me, unless someone at Sun really misread the specification when designing the mainboard. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs - 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: 2006-10-27 09:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||