Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:42:03 +0200 | From | Andreas Herrmann <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |