Re: 2.4.x/alpha/ALI chipset/IDE problems summary Re: 2.4.1 not fully

John Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:30:37 -0500


On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> Sorry, but the ALI code was written based upon ix86 :-(
> Where were you guys during 2.3.X development?

We had lots of problems with the few 2.3.x kernels we downloaded; and R&D
effort was needed elsewhere.

Would it help if a UP1100 was somehow made available for
testing/development?

--
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
-- In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise, they aren't.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


00), -1);

This becomes a series of loads and tests. Ideally, a _single_ test should suffice
to inform the NMI handler whether we're in NMI_LOCAL_APIC mode or not. One problem
is that we aren't resetting nmi_watchdog to NMI_NONE if we fail to detect or
initialise the local APIC; if we did, we could kill the cpu_has_apic test.

... however, nmi_perfctr_msr could serve this purpose since it will be
non-zero if and only if (cpu_has_apic && nmi_watchdog == NMI_LOCAL_APIC).
So I would actually suggest something like:

if (nmi_perfctr_msr)
wrmsr(nmi_perfctr_msr, -(cpu_khz/HZ*1000), -1);

/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/