From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752471AbYIAW5V (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:57:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751239AbYIAW5N (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:57:13 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50201 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbYIAW5M (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:57:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:56:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Thomas Gleixner cc: Larry Finger , LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alok Kataria , Michael Buesch Subject: Re: Regression in 2.6.27 caused by commit bfc0f59 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <48BB2116.1060904@lwfinger.net> <48BC2A03.9000104@lwfinger.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Umm. Which one. The 32-bit or the 64-bit? > > The 32 bit version. So then the PIT isn't going to work on that machine. Do you have HPET? Because if so, the most obvious choice would be to say: - on old machines, the PIT is likely more reliable than PM_TIMER - on new machines, the HPET is likely more reliable than PIT and there's actually a fairly obvious place to distinguish between old and new: if ti has a HPET, consider it a new one. But that just means that there's never any reason to use PM_TIMER anyway, and the proper patch would probably be to just ignore it. No? Linus