Am Samstag 09 Februar 2008 schrieben Sie: > 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 kind > > 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. > > iirc the thread which inspired this patch (together with several > bugs in both novell and kernel.org bugzilla) was > > http://marc.info/?t=116175224500001&r=1&w=2 Interesting, this was where I posted, as well... > 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 again (yes it was 2.6.24 with early-quirks.c from git and your patch on top) doesn't give more info then I already provided. Furthermore I also told you that because of missing nforce2 ID the practical test wasn't really necessary. Just add this line to your patch: + QBRIDGE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_NFORCE2, nvidia_timer), So that the quirk gets applied for nForce2, then your patch is - while still wrong in my eyes - not a regression anymore (for me) and thus I would take back my NAK(, but still not ACK it). bye, -- (°= =°) //\ Prakash Punnoor /\\ V_/ \_V
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
