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    [W:0.027 / U:0.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site