Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:00:49 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/digi digi.c Message-ID: <20020411162116.D3455-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20020410105203.B209@locore.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > Apparently, On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:06:18AM -0400, > John Baldwin said words to the effect of; > > I've thought about having some sort of separate API for code that just ways to > > delay. Right now they use tsleep() on a channel that never gets woken up with > > a timeout. If we had a delay(int timo) function then it could use a callout > > when callouts were working and fall back to DELAY() in the cold case. > > No, this is wrong. Anything that uses cold is wrong. The correct fix is to > move the clock initialization earlier in boot to be before the device probe. This can't be done in a machine independent way. Clock interrupts might be shared, and then enabling them first would cause either endless interrupts if another device is driving the interrupt. This happens not to be a problem on i386's because clock interrupts aren't shared. I think this is still a problem for configuration of drivers with shared non-clock interrupts. The handling of this seems to have regressed in -current on i386's. RELENG_4 at least has large comments about it. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020411162116.D3455-100000>