[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4787864C.1090101@reed.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:07:56 -0500
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Rolland <rol@...917.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
rol <rol@...be.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80
I/O delay override.
Alan Cox wrote:
>> bus abort on the LPC bus". More problematic is that I would think some
>> people might want to turn on the AMD feature that generates machine
>> checks if a bus timeout happens. The whole point of machine checks is
>>
>
> An ISA/LPC bus timeout is fulfilled by the bridge so doesn't cause an MCE.
>
>
>
Good possibility, but the documentation on HyperTransport suggests
otherwise, even for LPC bridges in this particular modern world of
AMD64. I might do the experiment someday to see if my LPC bridge is
implemented in a way that does or doesn't support enabling MCE's. Could
be different between Intel and AMD - I haven't had reason to pore over
the Intel chipset specs, since my poking into all this stuff has been
driven by my personal machine's issues, and it's not got any Intel
compatible parts.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists