Juan Quintela wrote: >>> We already have to disable hpet for 5.4 (1 year ago). It was done with >>> a local hack because it was supposed that for next big release it would >>> have been fixed. >> But this remains a RHEL issue. Redhat decided to compile out features >> that are unsupported, others seem to handle this differently. > > And then, everybody has a different hack to disable the features that > they don't need. Instead of doing a local hack, we do a patch that > allows anyone to disable HPET if it sees fit.
So far I only know of precisely one user that wants to disable x86 platform devices at build-time. > >>> Here we are, and device is still not fixed, what to do? Another local >>> patch? Just get upstream to integrate a sane way to disable it and let >>> in enable by default? >> Let's start with listing your requirements to no longer disable HPET. > > It is not stable at this point in time :-( Running with --no-hpet is > better than without it in all our testing. If we have to ask/modify > everything to use --no-hpet, we can also compile-out it. > >> That would already help us to asses how long !CONFIG_HPET would actually >> be of any use at all. I'm yet optimistic that we can resolve most if not >> all remaining concerns for 0.13 - and CONFIG_HPET would at best be 0.13 >> material anyway. > > At this very point in time: > - it is not stable Well, that is helpful. > - lack irq-reinjection when missing ticks That is more helpful. I just reworked the RTC regarding this, I guess it will be straightforward to address it in the HPET too. > > (I was not the one debugging/testing this so I don't have more details, > but can ask for them). So, it is not stable enough yet. HPET is a fairly small device, a few hundred lines of code, only a few ugly platform dependencies, but that's it already. I bet it could have been fixed by now if someone just started by the time the tests reported "it is not stable enough". Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
