From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Florian Lohoff" <flo@rfc822.org>, <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DEC init_cycle_counter
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:26:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <007f01c05c63$9b517b20$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20001202132748.A2002@paradigm.rfc822.org
Only that if you adopted the CPU probe and configuration
scheme that we've been promulgating at MIPS, it would
already have been taken care of in kernel/cpu_probe.c, and
could be tested as (mips_cpu.options & MIPS_CPU_COUNTER).
I believe I even checked in the headers and C file in the 2.2
repository, though I don't think I "wired it up" to replace the old
assembler spaghetti.
Kevin K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Lohoff" <flo@rfc822.org>
To: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 1:27 PM
Subject: [PATCH] DEC init_cycle_counter
>
> Comments ?
>
> Index: time.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/linux/arch/mips/dec/time.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -u -r1.11 arch/mips/dec/time.c
> --- arch/mips/dec/time.c 2000/11/23 02:00:49 1.11
> +++ arch/mips/dec/time.c 2000/12/02 12:20:09
> @@ -423,46 +423,6 @@
> timer_interrupt(irq, dev_id, regs);
> }
>
> -char cyclecounter_available;
> -
> -static inline void init_cycle_counter(void)
> -{
> - switch (mips_cputype) {
> - case CPU_UNKNOWN:
> - case CPU_R2000:
> - case CPU_R3000:
> - case CPU_R3000A:
> - case CPU_R3041:
> - case CPU_R3051:
> - case CPU_R3052:
> - case CPU_R3081:
> - case CPU_R3081E:
> - case CPU_R6000:
> - case CPU_R6000A:
> - case CPU_R8000: /* Not shure about that one, play safe */
> - cyclecounter_available = 0;
> - break;
> - case CPU_R4000PC:
> - case CPU_R4000SC:
> - case CPU_R4000MC:
> - case CPU_R4200:
> - case CPU_R4400PC:
> - case CPU_R4400SC:
> - case CPU_R4400MC:
> - case CPU_R4600:
> - case CPU_R10000:
> - case CPU_R4300:
> - case CPU_R4650:
> - case CPU_R4700:
> - case CPU_R5000:
> - case CPU_R5000A:
> - case CPU_R4640:
> - case CPU_NEVADA:
> - cyclecounter_available = 1;
> - break;
> - }
> -}
> -
> struct irqaction irq0 = {timer_interrupt, SA_INTERRUPT, 0,
> "timer", NULL, NULL};
>
> @@ -513,8 +473,6 @@
> xtime.tv_sec = mktime(year, mon, day, hour, min, sec);
> xtime.tv_usec = 0;
> write_unlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
> -
> - init_cycle_counter();
>
> if (cyclecounter_available) {
> write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_COUNT, 0);
>
>
> --
> Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5201-669912
> Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DEC init_cycle_counter
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:26:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <007f01c05c63$9b517b20$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
Message-ID: <20001202132654.qxRxmAKE1WBUzYD709cku95nn3edOZc1duQKFVA7aEw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20001202132748.A2002@paradigm.rfc822.org
Only that if you adopted the CPU probe and configuration
scheme that we've been promulgating at MIPS, it would
already have been taken care of in kernel/cpu_probe.c, and
could be tested as (mips_cpu.options & MIPS_CPU_COUNTER).
I believe I even checked in the headers and C file in the 2.2
repository, though I don't think I "wired it up" to replace the old
assembler spaghetti.
Kevin K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Lohoff" <flo@rfc822.org>
To: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 1:27 PM
Subject: [PATCH] DEC init_cycle_counter
>
> Comments ?
>
> Index: time.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/linux/arch/mips/dec/time.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -u -r1.11 arch/mips/dec/time.c
> --- arch/mips/dec/time.c 2000/11/23 02:00:49 1.11
> +++ arch/mips/dec/time.c 2000/12/02 12:20:09
> @@ -423,46 +423,6 @@
> timer_interrupt(irq, dev_id, regs);
> }
>
> -char cyclecounter_available;
> -
> -static inline void init_cycle_counter(void)
> -{
> - switch (mips_cputype) {
> - case CPU_UNKNOWN:
> - case CPU_R2000:
> - case CPU_R3000:
> - case CPU_R3000A:
> - case CPU_R3041:
> - case CPU_R3051:
> - case CPU_R3052:
> - case CPU_R3081:
> - case CPU_R3081E:
> - case CPU_R6000:
> - case CPU_R6000A:
> - case CPU_R8000: /* Not shure about that one, play safe */
> - cyclecounter_available = 0;
> - break;
> - case CPU_R4000PC:
> - case CPU_R4000SC:
> - case CPU_R4000MC:
> - case CPU_R4200:
> - case CPU_R4400PC:
> - case CPU_R4400SC:
> - case CPU_R4400MC:
> - case CPU_R4600:
> - case CPU_R10000:
> - case CPU_R4300:
> - case CPU_R4650:
> - case CPU_R4700:
> - case CPU_R5000:
> - case CPU_R5000A:
> - case CPU_R4640:
> - case CPU_NEVADA:
> - cyclecounter_available = 1;
> - break;
> - }
> -}
> -
> struct irqaction irq0 = {timer_interrupt, SA_INTERRUPT, 0,
> "timer", NULL, NULL};
>
> @@ -513,8 +473,6 @@
> xtime.tv_sec = mktime(year, mon, day, hour, min, sec);
> xtime.tv_usec = 0;
> write_unlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
> -
> - init_cycle_counter();
>
> if (cyclecounter_available) {
> write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_COUNT, 0);
>
>
> --
> Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5201-669912
> Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-02 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-02 12:27 [PATCH] DEC init_cycle_counter Florian Lohoff
2000-12-02 13:02 ` Juan J. Quintela
2000-12-02 13:14 ` Florian Lohoff
2000-12-02 13:26 ` Kevin D. Kissell [this message]
2000-12-02 13:26 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2000-12-02 13:27 ` Ralf Baechle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='007f01c05c63$9b517b20$0deca8c0@Ulysses' \
--to=kevink@mips.com \
--cc=flo@rfc822.org \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox