On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 11:34 -0800, john stultz wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 07:41 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > Should tsc be preferred to pit though? > > Depends on your system. If C2/C3 or cpufreq state changes are detected, > we mark the tsc as unstable. I'm not using them on purpose but I'll check it out. > It sounds as if from your earlier email the TSC works fine, so we might > want to look at what's making the system think its not ok. I probably > need to add a message as to why it was disqualified. However, that's a > separate issue from the last patch. I'll have a play, see if I can figure it out. > Thanks for the testing! Thanks for the fix! Ian. -- Ian Campbell * Turken thinks little kids are absolutely adorable... especialyy when they're someone elses.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- PMTMR running too fast
- From: Ian Campbell <[email protected]>
- Re: PMTMR running too fast
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: PMTMR running too fast
- From: Ian Campbell <[email protected]>
- Re: PMTMR running too fast
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: PMTMR running too fast
- From: Ian Campbell <[email protected]>
- Re: PMTMR running too fast
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- PMTMR running too fast
- Prev by Date: Re: can't boot : Spurious ACK with kernel 2.6.19
- Next by Date: Re: More ARM binutils fuckage
- Previous by thread: Re: PMTMR running too fast
- Next by thread: Re: PMTMR running too fast
- Index(es):
 |