On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:40:45AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > >We should not really trust ACPI/FADT here. See acpicpu(4) how this is > > Why?
Because we (the operating system) know this better than the BIOS writer. And because this flag is not reliable; numerous systems where tsc(9) is "broken" miss this flag in my ACPI table collection, and vice versa. > >derived from the actual CPU information. Additionally, I suggested > >decreasing > >the quality of tsc(9) based on this information a long time ago, but joerg@ > >had concerns about this. > > TSC is considerably faster so definitely preferred, but if it doesn't > work, it doesn't work. Obviously. I can not recall now what joerg@'s point was back then. - Jukka.
