On the day of Friday 08 February 2008 Andi Kleen hast written:
quoted text
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:13:35PM +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote:

quoted text
> > Sorry, I meant the opposite. I needed the acpi_skip_timer_override kern=
el
quoted text
> > parameter for nforce2, thus no override. So this chipset is missing her=
e.
quoted text
> > At least I remember that my nforce2 needed the skipping,
>
> I hope you remember correctly and mean it this time. It would be better
> if you could double check.

Yes, confirmed. timer w/o the skipping stays XT-PIC on nforce2.

w/o skipping:

  0:     153413    XT-PIC-XT        timer
  1:         10   IO-APIC-edge      i8042
  8:          2   IO-APIC-edge      rtc
  9:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   acpi
 12:        112   IO-APIC-edge      i8042
 14:         37   IO-APIC-edge      ide0
 16:     165137   IO-APIC-fasteoi   eth0
 17:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   Technisat/B2C2 FlexCop II/IIb/III Digit=
al=20
TV PCI Driver
 18:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   NVidia nForce2
 19:       7922   IO-APIC-fasteoi   nvidia
NMI:          0
LOC:     153209
ERR:          0
MIS:          0

w/ skipping:
           CPU0
  0:      47834   IO-APIC-edge      timer
  1:         10   IO-APIC-edge      i8042
  8:          2   IO-APIC-edge      rtc
  9:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   acpi
 12:        112   IO-APIC-edge      i8042
 14:         37   IO-APIC-edge      ide0
 16:     152413   IO-APIC-fasteoi   eth0
 17:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   Technisat/B2C2 FlexCop II/IIb/III Digit=
al=20
TV PCI Driver
 18:          0   IO-APIC-fasteoi   NVidia nForce2
 19:       1582   IO-APIC-fasteoi   nvidia
NMI:          0
LOC:      47736
ERR:          0
MIS:          0


lspci -n:
00:00.0 0600: 10de:01e0 (rev c1)
00:00.1 0500: 10de:01eb (rev c1)
00:00.2 0500: 10de:01ee (rev c1)
00:00.3 0500: 10de:01ed (rev c1)
00:00.4 0500: 10de:01ec (rev c1)
00:00.5 0500: 10de:01ef (rev c1)
00:01.0 0601: 10de:0060 (rev a3)
00:01.1 0c05: 10de:0064 (rev a2)
00:02.0 0c03: 10de:0067 (rev a3)
00:02.1 0c03: 10de:0067 (rev a3)
00:02.2 0c03: 10de:0068 (rev a3)
00:04.0 0200: 10de:0066 (rev a1)
00:05.0 0401: 10de:006b (rev a2)
00:06.0 0401: 10de:006a (rev a1)
00:08.0 0604: 10de:006c (rev a3)
00:09.0 0101: 10de:0065 (rev a2)
00:0d.0 0c00: 10de:006e (rev a3)
00:1e.0 0604: 10de:01e8 (rev c1)
01:08.0 0280: 13d0:2103 (rev 01)
02:00.0 0300: 10de:0281 (rev a1)

quoted text
> I'm a little sceptical because we had this patch in OpenSUSE 10.3
> and I didn't think there were complaints from NF2 users.
> With the changes you're requesting it turns from something
> very well tested into something experimental.

Well, even w/o the skipping my nforce2 system wasn't unstable, AFAIK. So I=
=20
don't think just because of the XT-PIC entry people would complain.

See why I don't want the quirk to be applied more than needed? *NOT* applyi=
ng=20
the quirk on nforce2 didn't cause any obvious side effects. APPLYING to mcp=
51=20
causes hard lock-ups.

quoted text
> But NF2 should not need a timer override anyways so probably
> ignoring it there is ok.
>
> Actually checking CK804 is already an Nforce2, but you might
> have NF2S which has a different ID. Do you have full lspci/lspci -n
> output?

My nforce2 board has different id then the listed ones, so that one needs t=
o=20
be included.

quoted text
> Ok I'm appending another patch that adds the NF2S too, can
> you please test it on that machine?

No point if the quirk doesn't get triggered.

quoted text
>
> > > I'm appending a revised patch. Does it work for you?
> >
> > I haven't tested it, but it would "work" as it would bail out in my case
>
> Can you please test it?

Will try the final version...

quoted text
> > or not. Are you actually sure that so many nforceX boards have broken
> > bioses?
>
> Yes, it was a problem in the Nvidia reference BIOS that they sent to OEMs
> to base their own BIOS on, so pretty much everybody had this problem.
>
> We went over this with Nvidia engineers with a fine comb at this
> point. If you search the mailing list archives you might even
> find the discussions.

Yes, I actually linked to that discussion in the previous mail and there Al=
len=20
Martin only stated that nforce2 and 3 may be affected. So I wonder why you=
=20
(or Len) include nforce4 and mcp51 and so on?

Can't the quirk be made more intelligent? Ie. if we want APIC mode and time=
r=20
stays as XT-PIC, then and only then rewire the timer and don't use the=20
override, ie apply quirk? If rewiring isn't possible, then the kernel shoul=
d=20
als least print out a big fat warning that the user should probably skip th=
e=20
override. I don't know enough on the subject to explain it more precisely.

bye,
=2D-=20
(=B0=3D                 =3D=B0)
//\ Prakash Punnoor /\\
V_/                 \_V