From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 19 07:03:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA21085 for current-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:03:21 -0700 Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA21076 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:03:13 -0700 Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM) id AA06899; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:58:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:58:37 -0400 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" Message-Id: <9510191358.AA06899@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: John Hay Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD-current) Subject: clock running faster? In-Reply-To: <199510191109.NAA27005@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> References: <199510191109.NAA27005@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk < said: > 30 second in an hour. Previously the clock was very stable. I have even > rebooted and it still does it. > Has anybody seen something like this? I see there were changes made to > i386/isa/clock.c and kern/kern_clock.c. Does the startup code correctly diagnose your CPU as a 90-MHz model? If not, then you can #ifdef out the code in clock.c that looks like this: unsigned long long count; __asm __volatile(".byte 0x0f, 0x30" : : "A"(0LL), "c" (0x10)); DELAY(1000000); __asm __volatile(".byte 0xf,0x31" : "=A" (count)); /* * XX lose if the clock rate is not nearly a multiple of 1000000. */ pentium_mhz = (count + 500000) / 1000000; And you might check to see why the DELAY macro isn't delaying for the correct length of time (should be one second). -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant