lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner 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 ?

> Is the HPET on these systems not working at all so the force enable
> code is useless ?

The current quirk is incomplete. Some more chipset fiddling has to be
done to enable HPET interrupts. I have a patch that would do this.
And from my tests it seems to work faultlessly.

But the official statement is that HPET is not supported on SB4XX.

Thus there are 2 alternatives:
(1) Remove the current (incomplete) quirk.
(2) Extent the quirk.
But whoever forces HPET would use it on his own risk.

I decided to do (1) because it's safest.
Other opinions?


Regards,

Andreas




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-05 14:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site