| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: suppress HPET broadcast initialization in t
|
To: |
Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: suppress HPET broadcast initialization in the presence of ARAT |
|
From: |
"Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:46:46 +0800 |
|
Accept-language: |
zh-CN, en-US |
|
Acceptlanguage: |
zh-CN, en-US |
|
Cc: |
"Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:50:27 -0800 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<C97BE8BA.133DE%keir@xxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE71259BBC109F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C97BE8BA.133DE%keir@xxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
AcvJKtjJC1MX3WdtTkmBlr8Ula8GDwBWM7pwAADwAnMAAnIH4A== |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: suppress HPET broadcast initialization in the presence of ARAT |
Keir Fraser wrote on 2011-02-12:
> On 12/02/2011 07:15, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich wrote on 2011-02-10:
>>> This follows Linux commit 39fe05e58c5e448601ce46e6b03900d5bf31c4b0,
>>> noticing that all this setup is pointless when ARAT support is
>>> there, and knowing that on SLED11's native kernel it has actually
>>> caused S3 resume issues.
>>
>> Although this patch was already checked in, I still have to say it
>> is not necessary for Xen. Because hpet_broadcast_init() fn is only
>> called if (xen_cpuidle && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) in
>> disable_pit_irq(). Of course I agree to keep it as a never used double check.
>
> Hmm I didn't spot that. Actually it is part of a more complex series
> of checks in the caller, so I wonder whether repeating just that one
> check in the function itself really makes much sense. I'm somewhat inclibned
> to revert it.
Revert it would be better.
Jimmy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home