[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4787AD72.3080100@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:54:58 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.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.
David P. Reed wrote:
> 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.
If you have a subtractive decoding bridge you will have completion on HT.
	-hpa
--
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
 
