![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:59 pm, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Yes. However, if machines uses buggy chip, I guessed TSC/PIT would be > more proper as time source. Oh yes but there has been an epidemic of timer problems (fast/slow, lost ticks etc) lately meaning the pm timer is being relied upon more and more. > But probably you are right, timer_pit.c > seems more slow usually (it uses many I/O port). > > I'll remove unlikely(), and also will remove "Use other timer source" > from warning. Suggesting another timer source is ok in the warning I believe given massive amounts of wasted cpu. > BTW, this patch is still quick hack. Understood. Perhaps having an indirect function call set to either good_pmtmr() or bad_pmtmr() after checking would be preferable to a variable that is checked on each function call despite never changing. > At least, we would need to check the ICH4 which says in comment. > However, I couldn't find the PM-Timer Errata in ICH4 spec update. > > Do you/anyone know about a ICH4 error? Not personally but my ICH4 pm timer seems to work very well whereas Andi's apparently similar chipset exhibits terrible problems. Cheers, Con - 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: 2006-03-21 03:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||