lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: HPET : Legacy Routing Replacement Enable - 3rd try.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:29:44AM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote:

> >JFYI: The new per-cpu timekeeping code doesn't need the HPET legacy bit,
> >thus not replacing IRQ0 (PIT) and IRQ13 (RTC). It still can do that, but
> >will work just as well without it.

> There seems to be lot of confusion here. Current code isn't using hpet
> as tick source if legacy is not supported. This patch adds
> hpet_lrr_force but it's not clear how it interacts with hpet_use_timer -
> in some places it is hpet_use_timer and some (hpet_use_timer &&
> hpet_lrr_force).

Sorry about my share of confusion introduced: Jiri Bohac
(jbohac@suse.cz) is currently working on a new timekeeping code for
x86-64 that takes a significantly different approach that allows for
precise and fast gettimeofday even on CPUs with unsynchronized TSCs.

This rewrite depends even less on hpet_use_timer than the current code.
The current code can cope with hpet_use_timer == 0, but that mode of
operation is far from optimal.

> The timer is routed to ioapic pin 2 which is irq0 with source override.
> With this patch with hpet_lrr_force=1 timer irq is set to 2 for x86_64
> and 0 for i386, that can't be right?

It doesn't seem right to me, unless someone at Sun really misread the
specification when designing the mainboard.

--
Vojtech Pavlik
Director SuSE Labs
-
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: 2006-10-27 09:07    [W:0.043 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site