Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932864AbYBHPNy (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:13:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759092AbYBHPNp (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:13:45 -0500 Received: from mail-in-10.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.50]:47301 "EHLO mail-in-10.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757664AbYBHPNn (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:13:43 -0500 From: Prakash Punnoor To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace nvidia timer override quirk with pci id list Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:13:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080207195519.GA21772@basil.nowhere.org> <200802072221.19099.prakash@punnoor.de> <20080208113638.GA4745@one.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20080208113638.GA4745@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3023262.yLajEcYNs4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200802081613.39906.prakash@punnoor.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3813 Lines: 104 --nextPart3023262.yLajEcYNs4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On the day of Friday 08 February 2008 Andi Kleen hast written: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:21:18PM +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote: > > On the day of Thursday 07 February 2008 Andi Kleen hast written: > > > Replace the old "for all of nvidia" quirk with a quirk containing pci > > > device ID. I goobled this list together from pci.ids and googling and > > > it may be incomplete, but so far I haven't had complaints. > > > > > > + QBRIDGE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x02f0, nvidia_timer), /* mcp 51/nf4 ? > > > */ > > > > If you want to skip timer override on this board, this is a *NAK* from > > me. I told you the last time, it only works reliably here on MCP51 with > > timer > > Hmm, if you told me it got lost somewhere, sorry. I at least found this post: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/13/2 though I remeb= er=20 we had some discussions. ;-) > > > override working. Even before Asus released a bios which had an option = to > > enable the hpet, I needed the override or I got irratic behaviour. Since > > I got hpet enabled I gave up on arguing as the wrongly triggered quirk > > didn't bug me anymore. > > Ok we can keep the HPET check if that makes you more happy. > > > IIRC my nforce2 needed the override. I didn't see that in the list. > > The list only contains IDs where the override should be ignored; so > if it has a correct one and it's not there everything is fine. Sorry, I meant the opposite. I needed the acpi_skip_timer_override kernel=20 parameter for nforce2, thus no override. So this chipset is missing here. A= t=20 least I remember that my nforce2 needed the skipping,=20 otherwise the timer stayed in XT-PIC mode even when APIC was requested. > I'm appending a revised patch. Does it work for you? I haven't tested it, but it would "work" as it would bail out in my case=20 because of the hpet check. The problem I see with this approach - as with t= he=20 old one - it simply wants to ignore the override for a whole bunch of=20 chipsets. (The old one is catastrophic as it even doesn't care for chipset= =20 revision.) And checking for hpet is just heuristics (or what is the=20 rationale behind it?) not a real check whether the override should be ignor= ed=20 or not. Are you actually sure that so many nforceX boards have broken biose= s?=20 References? I would prefer a DMI check and only apply the quirk for *known*= =20 broken bioses instead fo "blindly" doing it as in my case my mcp51 system i= s=20 unstable with the quirk applied - it *never* needed the quirk. I found this: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/test/2.6.5/= 20040422223905-nforce2_timer.patch So it seems the original (proposed?) version did a DMI check for known brok= en=20 bioses. Why was this approach abandoned? According to http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/427 it seems only nforce2 and perhaps some nforce3 are relevant. To sum it up, I think it is a step into the right direction, but still not= =20 correct. =2D-=20 (=B0=3D =3D=B0) //\ Prakash Punnoor /\\ V_/ \_V --nextPart3023262.yLajEcYNs4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHrHGjxU2n/+9+t5gRAiY+AKD1sFh3T9z5fm0lnmj8NYnNTj2r3gCgrwup NRIwGCgU/EZtEX3Fbc2u8SY= =tAHx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3023262.yLajEcYNs4-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/