lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: "clock timer configuration lost" on Serverworks chipset
I'm confused.  The 2.2.19 time.c is already doing ">":
/* VIA686a test code... reset the latch if count > max */
if (count > LATCH-1) {
[adjust count and whine]
The 2.2.20-pre2 patch doesn't change time.c, and I don't see
this code in 2.4.4 or 2.4.5pre.

Are you saying the code should be doing the equivalent of
"(count > LATCH)", or is 2.2.19 correct and the whines I'm
seeing mean there really is a problem with the Serverworks
chipset?

Thanks,

jcastle

Alan Cox wrote:
>Jim Castleberry)wrote:
>> How well has the problem been nailed down? Could it be that it just
>> showed up first on VIA and the real cause (and fix) remains to be
>> discovered? Or does Serverworks somehow have an identical bug in
>> their chipset?
>
>There is a notional off by one in the check at least by the rules of the
>original chip which do allow the overflow value to be visible momentarily.
>Later -ac checks for > not >=
>

-
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: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.025 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site