>> If we configure for "I have a TSC, period" you add the option
>> to disable it, which nullifies any benefit of the config option
>> in the first place since we can't assume TSC presence any more.
>> If we don't configure for TSC, you force tsc_disable, which means
>> that a generic kernel _can't_ use the TSC.
>
> 2.4 was modified to printk a message that TSC was not disabled. This
> does confuse people
Having this config option ass-backwards is mind-bogglingly confusing,
and there seems no real reason for it. John had a plan to just put
in CONFIG_X86_PIT instead as the inverse of this, and delete
CONFIG_X86_TSC. He seems to have gone off this idea for some reason
I can't understand ... I think it solves a lot of these issues ...
Having a config option called TSC that in fact has nothing to directly
do with the TSC, but disables the PIT seems silly. The first time I
read all this code I spend quite a while thinking it was all the
incorrect, and the wrong way around ... things should be more intuitive
than that.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST