Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-04 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:30:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:28:27AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > > Hi John, Andrew, > > > > > > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > > away. If yes, then it looks like a hardware issue. > >

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-04 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:02:38PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:30:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:28:27AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > > > > Hi John, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > Can you check whether only the following change m

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-04 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:30:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:28:27AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > > Hi John, Andrew, > > > > > > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > > away. If yes, then it looks like a hardware issue. > >

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-04 Thread Andrew Walrond
On Thursday 03 February 2005 20:02, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:30:56AM -0800, john stultz wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 06:28 -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > > > away. If yes, then it loo

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:28:27AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > Hi John, Andrew, > > > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > away. If yes, then it looks like a hardware issue. > > > hpet_writel(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_CMP); > >+hpet_writel(hpet_tick

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread Andi Kleen
> Basically I am thinking of something like this will be a good generic solution > in place of simple two writes. > > for (i = 0 ; i ; i++) { > hpet_writel(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_CMP); > if (hpet_tick == hpet_readl(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_CMP)) > break; > } Makes sense. There wer

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread Venkatesh Pallipadi
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:30:56AM -0800, john stultz wrote: > On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 06:28 -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > > away. If yes, then it looks like a hardware issue. > > > > > hpet_writel(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_C

RE: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread john stultz
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 06:28 -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > Can you check whether only the following change makes the problem go > away. If yes, then it looks like a hardware issue. > > > hpet_writel(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_CMP); > >+hpet_writel(hpet_tick, HPET_T0_CMP); /* AK: why twice? *

RE: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
inal Message- >From: john stultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:05 PM >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh >Cc: Andi Kleen; lkml; keith maanthey; Max Asbock; Chris McDermott >Subject: i386 HPET code > >Hey Venkatesh, > I've been looking into a

Re: i386 HPET code

2005-02-03 Thread Andrew Walrond
On Thursday 03 February 2005 02:05, john stultz wrote: > Hey Venkatesh, > I've been looking into a bug where i386 2.6 kernels do not boot on IBM > e325s if HPET_TIMER is enabled (hpet=disable works around the issue). > When running x86-64 kernels, the issue isn't seen. It appears that after FWIW

i386 HPET code

2005-02-02 Thread john stultz
Hey Venkatesh, I've been looking into a bug where i386 2.6 kernels do not boot on IBM e325s if HPET_TIMER is enabled (hpet=disable works around the issue). When running x86-64 kernels, the issue isn't seen. It appears that after the hpet is enabled, we stop receiving timer ticks. I've not p