Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:34:18 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
To:        Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@linux.realnet.co.sz>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] Relevance of 8254 calibration. 
Message-ID:  <200111270134.fAR1YIM08540@harmony.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:54:23 %2B0200." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111251151240.28188-100000@netfinity.realnet.co.sz> 
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111251151240.28188-100000@netfinity.realnet.co.sz>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111251151240.28188-100000@netfinity.realnet.co.sz> Zwane Mwaikambo writes:
: I'd just like to know wether there are any i386 boxes which don't have a
: timer_freq of  1193182Hz I know there might be slight variations but i
: still have to come across a box that doesn't, which leads me to the
: purpose of this email. Do we need to do the 8254 clock calibration?

Yes.  Almost *ALL* PCs in the field aren't exactly 11931282Hz.
There's a lot of variance in this.  PC have such crappy oscillators
that calibration is required.  The "slight" variation can be as large
as +-300Hz, which is huge. :-(.

But I'm a little biased here...

Warner

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111270134.fAR1YIM08540>