On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:59 pm, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Yes. However, if machines uses buggy chip, I guessed TSC/PIT would be
> more proper as time source.
Oh yes but there has been an epidemic of timer problems (fast/slow, lost ticks
etc) lately meaning the pm timer is being relied upon more and more.
> But probably you are right, timer_pit.c
> seems more slow usually (it uses many I/O port).
>
> I'll remove unlikely(), and also will remove "Use other timer source"
> from warning.
Suggesting another timer source is ok in the warning I believe given massive
amounts of wasted cpu.
> BTW, this patch is still quick hack.
Understood. Perhaps having an indirect function call set to either
good_pmtmr() or bad_pmtmr() after checking would be preferable to a variable
that is checked on each function call despite never changing.
> At least, we would need to check the ICH4 which says in comment.
> However, I couldn't find the PM-Timer Errata in ICH4 spec update.
>
> Do you/anyone know about a ICH4 error?
Not personally but my ICH4 pm timer seems to work very well whereas Andi's
apparently similar chipset exhibits terrible problems.
Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
