[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080904161707.GA24369@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:17:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > This reverts commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085
> > > (x86: enable hpet=force for AMD SB400)
> > >
> > > Since ATI/AMD decided not to support HPET on SB4xx it doesn't
> > > make sense to enable this unsupported feature.
> > > (I was not aware of this when submitting the quirk.)
> > >
> > > If a system with SB4xx chipset provides an ACPI HPET table and does
> > > not boot, "nohpet" should be used as kernel parameter.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
> >
> > applied to tip/x86/urgent, thanks Andreas. I guess a system broke due to
> > this commit?
>
> Hmm, why do we remove something which needs to be force enabled by the
> user anyway ?
good point, i thought the original commit caused unconditional
force-enabling - but indeed it is only relevant if hpet=force is
specified. (which should be rare and specific)
> Is the HPET on these systems not working at all so the force enable
> code is useless ?
also, if a user does hpet=force and thing break he's got to keep all the
pieces, right?
or is there any other side-effect of the commit that matters here?
Ingo
--
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