Am Samstag 09 Februar 2008 schrieben Sie:
quoted text
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 04:51:05PM +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> > On the day of Saturday 09 February 2008 Andi Kleen hast written:
> > > We discussed this back then with Nvidia engineers and they stated
> > > that only NF5 would need timer overrides.
> >
> > Can I get a link which verifies your statement? I provided one which ki=
nd
quoted text
> > of contradicts yours.
>
> Sorry cannot supply links to them, they were private mail. For some
> reason the Nvidia people seem to be shy to post to mailing lists.

Too bad that you cannot make them publish their infos.

quoted text
>
> iirc the thread which inspired this patch (together with several
> bugs in both novell and kernel.org bugzilla) was
>
> http://marc.info/?t=3D116175224500001&r=3D1&w=3D2

Interesting, this was where I posted, as well...

quoted text
> So you have to trust me on that -- it's a bit similar to as to I have
> to trust your not yet produced boot log and test results.

And I won't, as I reverted to my stable kernel again and thus patching it=20
again (yes it was 2.6.24 with early-quirks.c from git and your patch on top=
)=20
doesn't give more info then I already provided. Furthermore I also told you=
=20
that because of missing nforce2 ID the practical test wasn't really=20
necessary.


Just add this line to your patch:

+       QBRIDGE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_NFORCE2,=20
nvidia_timer),


So that the quirk gets applied for nForce2, then your patch is - while stil=
l=20
wrong in my eyes - not a regression anymore (for me) and thus I would take=
=20
back my NAK(, but still not ACK it).

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