In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon wri
tes:
> In anycase, I think this is reasonable especially if we explicitly
> use the fast code for those chipsets known to be good. I would like
> to commit it. It can handle *ANY* sort of ripple or fast-carry breakage,
> really any type of breakage since it looks for two identical samples
> after masking rather then using an inequality.
My only worry here is laptops.
If my laptop is connected to the wall-power when it boots it comes
up at full CPU speed during the probe and mask determination.
Then I unplug it and the CPU speed drops by a large factor and
suddenly the mask is too tight for the CPU to get two samples.
I think we need an approach where we loosen the mask at runtime if
some significant number of iterations fail to get a count may be
needed:
#define N 25
static unsigned mask = 0xfffffffe;
for (;;) {
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
c = READ_TIMER & mask;
d = READ_TIMER & mask;
if (c == d)
return(d);
}
printf("Adjusting mask to %08x\n", mask);
mask <<= 1;
}
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
