> 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/
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/