Re: [linux-kernel] Re: [PATCH] x86: use explicit timing delay for pit accesses in kernel and pcspkr driver

2008-02-20 Thread Rene Herman

On 20-02-08 21:13, David P. Reed wrote:

Actually, disparaging things as "one idiotic system" doesn't seem like a 
long-term thoughtful process - it's not even accurate.


Whatever we think about systems using port 0x80, fact of the matter is that 
they do and outside of legacy stuff that isn't applicable to these systems, 
Linux needs to stop using it (post ACPI init at least) to be able to run on 
them.


As options of doing so we have:

1) Replace the port 0x80 I/O delay with nothing. Determined to be unsafe.

2) Replace 0x80 with another port. None are really available and DMI based 
switching gets to be unmaintainable and has a such been shot down.


3) Replace the port 0x80 I/O delay with a udelay(2). Should work well enough 
in practice for the remaining users outside legacy drivers after (Alan's) 
cleaning up.


The remaining (possible) problem is that pre calibration microseconds are a 
total fiction and at least PIT init happens before calibration. In practice 
I believe this might not be much of a real-world problem since for whatever 
initial value for loops_per_jiffy we get at least our old double short jump 
that is enough of a delay for 386 and 486 but I sympathise with anone, such 
as HPA, who'd consider my beliefs not a particular guarantee.


So, we need a more useful pre calibration udelay. Ugly as it might be, 
through something like the attached. Alan, could you perhaps comment?


With the problam surfacing only post ACPI init, the _last_ remaining option 
is talking to the PIT using port 0x80 at init and using udelay after but I 
myself will not be submitting a patch to do so. Insane mess.


It would be good to get this crap sorted relatively quickly so we can do 
away with the io_delay mongering even pre .26 again. It introduces boot 
parameters and as such becomes part of API somewhat, so if it's not going to 
stay let's kill it quickly.


Ren
commit 9c679215248e837b34242632d5a22adf9a247021
Author: Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:   Wed Feb 20 12:52:30 2008 +0100

x86: per CPU family loops_per_jiffy initialization

Following the current port 0x80 I/O delay replacements we need
microseconds to be somewhat usefully defined pre calibration.

Initialize 386, 486 and Pentium 1 as fastest in their families
and higher CPUs (including 64-bit) at 1 Ghz. Note that trouble
should be absent past family 5 systems anyway.

Signed-off-by: Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/time_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/time_32.c
index 1a89e93..e33e70b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/time_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/time_32.c
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 
+#include 
 
 #include 
 #include 
@@ -134,6 +135,17 @@ void __init hpet_time_init(void)
  */
 void __init time_init(void)
 {
+   switch (boot_cpu_data.x86) {
+   case 3:
+   loops_per_jiffy = LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_386;
+   break;
+   case 4:
+   loops_per_jiffy = LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_486;
+   break;
+   case 5:
+   loops_per_jiffy = LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_586;
+   break;
+   }
tsc_init();
late_time_init = choose_time_init();
 }
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/delay.h b/include/asm-x86/delay.h
index 409a649..d0fbaf6 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/delay.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/delay.h
@@ -7,6 +7,11 @@
  * Delay routines calling functions in arch/x86/lib/delay.c
  */
 
+#define LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_386(400 / HZ)/* 386 at 40 Mhz */
+#define LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_486(3000 / HZ)   /* 486 at 120 MHz */
+#define LOOPS_PER_JIFFY_586(23300 / HZ)  /* Pentium 1 at 233 Mhz */
+#define LOOPS_PER_JIFFY(10 / HZ) /* P6+ at 1 GHz */
+
 /* Undefined functions to get compile-time errors */
 extern void __bad_udelay(void);
 extern void __bad_ndelay(void);
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 8b19820..94862c8 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -228,12 +228,11 @@ static int __init obsolete_checksetup(char *line)
return had_early_param;
 }
 
-/*
- * This should be approx 2 Bo*oMips to start (note initial shift), and will
- * still work even if initially too large, it will just take slightly longer
- */
-unsigned long loops_per_jiffy = (1<<12);
+#ifndef LOOPS_PER_JIFFY
+#define LOOPS_PER_JIFFY(1 << 12)
+#endif
 
+unsigned long loops_per_jiffy = LOOPS_PER_JIFFY;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(loops_per_jiffy);
 
 static int __init debug_kernel(char *str)


Re: [linux-kernel] Re: [PATCH] x86: use explicit timing delay for pit accesses in kernel and pcspkr driver

2008-02-20 Thread David P. Reed
Actually, disparaging things as "one idiotic system" doesn't seem like a 
long-term thoughtful process - it's not even accurate.  There are more 
such systems that are running code today than the total number of 486 
systems ever manufactured.  The production rate is $1M/month.


a) ENE chips are "documented" to receive port 80, and also it is the 
case that modern chipsets will happily diagnose writes to non-existent 
ports as MCE's.   Using side effects that depend on non-existent ports 
just creates a brittle failure mode down the road.  And it's not just 
post ACPI "initialization".   The pcspkr use of port 80 caused solid 
freezes if you typed "tab" to complete a command line and there were 
more than one choice, leading to beeps.


b) sad to say, Linux is not what hardware vendors use as the system that 
their BIOSes MUST work with.  That's Windows, and Windows, whether we 
like it or not does not require hardware vendors to stay away from port 80.


IMHO, calling something "idiotic" is hardly evidence-based decision 
making.   Maybe you love to hate Microsoft, but until Intel writes an 
architecture standard that says explicitly that a "standard PC" must not 
use port 80 for any peripheral, the port 80 thing is folklore, and one 
that is solely Linux-defined.


Rene Herman wrote:

On 20-02-08 18:05, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
 

Rene Herman wrote:


_Something_ like this would seem to be the only remaining option. It 
seems fairly unuseful to #ifdef around that switch statement for 
kernels without support for the earlier families, but if you insist...




"Only remaining option" other than the one we've had all along.  Even 
on the one idiotic set of systems which break, it only breaks 
post-ACPI intialization, IIRC.


Linus vetoed the DMI switch.

Rene.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/