lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085

    * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 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 ?

    good point, i thought the original commit caused unconditional
    force-enabling - but indeed it is only relevant if hpet=force is
    specified. (which should be rare and specific)

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

    also, if a user does hpet=force and thing break he's got to keep all the
    pieces, right?

    or is there any other side-effect of the commit that matters here?

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-04 18:19    [W:0.073 / U:29.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site