From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Williamson Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:47:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] more robust halt_light Message-Id: <1078415247.2504.3.camel@patsy.fc.hp.com> List-Id: References: <1078336640.2480.37.camel@patsy.fc.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <1078336640.2480.37.camel@patsy.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 15:56, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > > Can we get rid of the CONFIG option too? Or do folks who care (too?) > > much about wake-up latency prefer to turn off a CONFIG option over > > booting with nohlt? > > Some people have come to me concerned about the wakeup latency of having > the halt call in there, and it also looks like the PAL has a bug on our > platform that causes hangs when we call PAL_HALT_LIGHT (which we're > tracking down), so I wouldn't mind if the config option stuck around a > little longer (or was a boot time parameter at least). Jesse, Perhaps sn specific code (maybe sn_setup) could call disable_hlt() until you're comfortable leaving it on by default. Requiring a boot time command like option on your platform sounds error prone. Alex -- Alex Williamson HP Linux & Open Source Lab