Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:54:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: hpet_disable() call sites |
| |
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 27.03.12 at 14:58, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Is there any reason why hpet_disable() should not also be called > >> from (or some equivalent action be taken, perhaps including clearing > >> certain bits in the individual counters' configuration registers, which > >> are apparently - but perhaps wrongly - implied to be clear in e.g. > >> hpet_set_mode(), in) hpet_enable()? > > > > No, there is no particular reason why we don't clear those registers. > > In that case I'll prepare a patch to do so. One related question is > whether use of the HPET should be suppressed when any bit unknown > to the kernel is found set, or whether unknown bits should also be > cleared.
Hmm. Good question. We might at least add a printk to alert about it.
Thanks,
tglx
| |