From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265340AbTLNE1X (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:27:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265341AbTLNE1W (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:27:22 -0500 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:4228 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265340AbTLNE1W (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:27:22 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 04:27:14 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Ross Dickson Cc: Ian Kumlien , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fixes for nforce2 hard lockup, apic, io-apic, udma133 covered Message-ID: <20031214042714.GB21241@mail.shareable.org> References: <200312140407.28580.ross@datscreative.com.au> <200312140916.26005.ross@datscreative.com.au> <1071357683.2024.5.camel@big.pomac.com> <200312140949.52489.ross@datscreative.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312140949.52489.ross@datscreative.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ross Dickson wrote: > The v1 patch ((cpu_khz >> 12)+200) gave 700ns additional delay to > your existing code path so I think I was being too optimistic in the > initial v2 timing. I made the initial timing CPU freq dependent on > the assumption that a faster cpu would get to the delay point > quicker. Maybe it scales with bus speed, not CPU internal speed? -- Jamie