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
([email protected]) 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 [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]
