> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:02:43 -0400 > From: Ted Unangst <[email protected]> > > The acpihpet timer is, in my testing, lots better than the acpitimer. > Faster to read and more precise. They should not have the same quality > value. Double acpihpet.
Since both acpitimer(4) and acpihpet(4) are based on an abstract specification that AFAIK doesn't say anything about the actual underlying hardware I'm totally unconvinced unless you can show this to be true on a wide variety of hardware. If we do this, the quality of the amdpcib(4) and tcpcib(4) drivers should probably be raised to 3000. I intentionally assigned them a higher number than the acpitimer(4) and acpihpet(4) because for these drivers the underlying hardware is actually known! > Index: acpihpet.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpihpet.c,v > retrieving revision 1.13 > diff -u -p -r1.13 acpihpet.c > --- acpihpet.c 10 Jan 2011 13:36:57 -0000 1.13 > +++ acpihpet.c 15 Aug 2012 14:59:40 -0000 > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static struct timecounter hpet_timecount > 0xffffffff, /* counter_mask (24 bits) */ > 0, /* frequency */ > 0, /* name */ > - 1000 /* quality */ > + 2000 /* quality */ > }; > #endif
