From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754190AbYHTKqU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:46:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751953AbYHTKqM (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:46:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42846 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751606AbYHTKqL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:46:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:45:38 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Juergen Beisert Cc: Samuel Sieb , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael C. de Almeida" , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Magnus Damm , takada Subject: Re: kernel won't boot on a Cyrix MediaGXm (Geode ) Message-ID: <20080820104538.GF2816@elte.hu> References: <48841A92.4020301@sieb.net> <489A82D5.6020903@sieb.net> <20080820093238.GA22511@elte.hu> <200808201144.02919.jbe@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808201144.02919.jbe@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Juergen Beisert wrote: > On Mittwoch, 20. August 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >> any patch we should pick up to make your box boot? > > > > > > I've looked through various datasheets and found that the GXm and GXLV > > > Geode processors don't have an incrementor. I attached two patches. One > > > only calls the incrementor setup for GX1 or better. The other one > > > removes the incrementor setup entirely. As the incrementor value > > > differs according to clock speed and we would hope that the BIOS > > > configures it correctly, it is probably the better one to choose. But I > > > will leave that choice up to you. Either one works for me. :-) > > > > i went for the commit below and queued it up in tip/x86/urgent - thanks > > Samuel. > > > > what happens if the incrementor is not set up correctly by the BIOS > > The system can freeze. The clock the incrementor modifies is used for > the external SDRAM (something like a delay line or jitter reduction). > Thats why its setting depends on the core clock speed. so, what's the recommendation - is the patch fine? (which removes incrementor setting, leaving it to the BIOS) Ingo