Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:17:07 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085 |
| |
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > This reverts commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085 > > > (x86: enable hpet=force for AMD SB400) > > > > > > Since ATI/AMD decided not to support HPET on SB4xx it doesn't > > > make sense to enable this unsupported feature. > > > (I was not aware of this when submitting the quirk.) > > > > > > If a system with SB4xx chipset provides an ACPI HPET table and does > > > not boot, "nohpet" should be used as kernel parameter. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> > > > > applied to tip/x86/urgent, thanks Andreas. I guess a system broke due to > > this commit? > > Hmm, why do we remove something which needs to be force enabled by the > user anyway ?
good point, i thought the original commit caused unconditional force-enabling - but indeed it is only relevant if hpet=force is specified. (which should be rare and specific)
> Is the HPET on these systems not working at all so the force enable > code is useless ?
also, if a user does hpet=force and thing break he's got to keep all the pieces, right?
or is there any other side-effect of the commit that matters here?
Ingo
| |