From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 18 11: 7: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from firehouse.net (spook.networkoperations.com [209.42.203.59]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B29437BA7B for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:07:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abc@firehouse.net) Received: (qmail 23313 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Apr 2000 18:07:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:07:00 -0400 From: Alan Clegg To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to allow TSC with APM Message-ID: <20000418140700.A23152@ecto.greenpeas.org> References: <200004181747.CAA24371@tasogare.imasy.or.jp> <17283.956080869@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <17283.956080869@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 08:01:09PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Out of the ether, Poul-Henning Kamp spewed forth the following bitstream: > >> I'd like to recommend the following patches. Adding the option > >> "CLK_USE_TSC_ANYWAY" allows my laptop to use the TSC even though it > >> is "flakey". This option should not be set by default. > > > >I saw the same kind of patches and my laptop has this w/o any problems > >for long time. > >I'd like to commit submitted patch 2 or 3 days later if no objections. > It would be nice to have some kind of understanding why the tsc is > better than the i8254 before we kludge it... Any ideas on what would be needed to go forward with that? AlanC -- \ Alan B. Clegg Just because I can \ abc@firehouse.net does not mean I will. \ \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message