From: "Oleg I. Vdovikin" <vdovikin@jscc.ru>
To: "Ivan Kokshaysky" <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
"Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: alpha - generic_init_pit - why using RTC for calibration?
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:52:53 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <009801c102dc$c42d7a60$4d28d0c3@jscc.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <022901c10095$f4fca650$4d28d0c3@jscc.ru> <20010629211931.A582@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
Ivan, thanks. I will minorly adjust the patch, prepare it for 2.2.x series
and then post it.
Thanks,
Oleg.
P.S. Richard, any thoughts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Kokshaysky" <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
To: "Oleg I. Vdovikin" <vdovikin@jscc.ru>
Cc: "Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: alpha - generic_init_pit - why using RTC for calibration?
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:20:59PM +0400, Oleg I. Vdovikin wrote:
> > we've a bunch of UP2000/UP2000+ boards (similar to DP264) with
666MHz
> > EV67 Alphas (we're building large Alpha cluster). And we're regulary see
> > "HWRPB cycle frequency bogus" and the measured value for the speed in
the
> > range of 519 MHz - 666 MHz. And this value changes in this range from
boot
> > to boot. So why this happens???
>
> This is known problem with Cypress cy82c693 SIO. The RTC on this chip
> sometimes need a very long time (up to several minutes) to settle down
> after reset/power-up. But I thought it's fixed on newer systems with
> "ub" revision of the chip... :-(
>
> > So, the final question: why we're not using the aproach which is
used by
> > x86 time.c? I.e. why not to use CTC channel 2 for calibration?
>
> Good idea. The patch below works reliably on my sx164.
>
> Ivan.
>
> --- 2.4.6-pre5/arch/alpha/kernel/time.c Mon Nov 13 06:27:11 2000
> +++ linux/arch/alpha/kernel/time.c Fri Jun 29 20:58:09 2001
> @@ -169,6 +169,63 @@ common_init_rtc(void)
> init_rtc_irq();
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Calibrate CPU clock using legacy 8254 timer/counter. Stolen from
> + * arch/i386/time.c.
> + */
> +
> +#define CALIBRATE_LATCH (52 * LATCH)
> +#define CALIBRATE_TIME (52 * 1000020 / HZ)
> +
> +static unsigned long __init
> +calibrate_cc(void)
> +{
> + int cc;
> + unsigned long count = 0;
> +
> + /* Set the Gate high, disable speaker */
> + outb((inb(0x61) & ~0x02) | 0x01, 0x61);
> +
> + /*
> + * Now let's take care of CTC channel 2
> + *
> + * Set the Gate high, program CTC channel 2 for mode 0,
> + * (interrupt on terminal count mode), binary count,
> + * load 5 * LATCH count, (LSB and MSB) to begin countdown.
> + */
> + outb(0xb0, 0x43); /* binary, mode 0, LSB/MSB, Ch 2 */
> + outb(CALIBRATE_LATCH & 0xff, 0x42); /* LSB of count */
> + outb(CALIBRATE_LATCH >> 8, 0x42); /* MSB of count */
> +
> + cc = rpcc();
> + do {
> + count++;
> + } while ((inb(0x61) & 0x20) == 0);
> + cc = rpcc() - cc;
> +
> + /* Error: ECTCNEVERSET */
> + if (count <= 1)
> + goto bad_ctc;
> +
> + /* Error: ECPUTOOFAST */
> + if (count >> 32)
> + goto bad_ctc;
> +
> + /* Error: ECPUTOOSLOW */
> + if (cc <= CALIBRATE_TIME)
> + goto bad_ctc;
> +
> + return ((long)cc * 1000000) / CALIBRATE_TIME;
> +
> + /*
> + * The CTC wasn't reliable: we got a hit on the very first read,
> + * or the CPU was so fast/slow that the quotient wouldn't fit in
> + * 32 bits..
> + */
> +bad_ctc:
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> void __init
> time_init(void)
> {
> @@ -176,6 +233,9 @@ time_init(void)
> unsigned long cycle_freq, one_percent;
> long diff;
>
> + /* Calibrate CPU clock -- attempt #1. If this fails, use RTC. */
> + if (!est_cycle_freq)
> + est_cycle_freq = calibrate_cc();
> /*
> * The Linux interpretation of the CMOS clock register contents:
> * When the Update-In-Progress (UIP) flag goes from 1 to 0, the
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-07-02 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-29 12:20 alpha - generic_init_pit - why using RTC for calibration? Oleg I. Vdovikin
2001-06-29 17:19 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2001-07-02 9:52 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin [this message]
2001-07-03 13:06 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin
2001-07-04 18:45 ` [patch] " Richard Henderson
2001-07-05 7:14 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin
[not found] ` <3B441618.638A3FC@mandrakesoft.com>
2001-07-05 8:36 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin
2001-07-05 8:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2001-07-06 8:45 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin
2001-07-05 9:43 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2001-07-06 9:03 ` Oleg I. Vdovikin
2001-07-06 12:00 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
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='009801c102dc$c42d7a60$4d28d0c3@jscc.ru' \
--to=vdovikin@jscc.ru \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
/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