> > > + if (count > LATCH) {
> >
> > may be (count >= LATCH) would be even better ?
>
> Some PIT clones seem to hold the LATCH value momentarily judging by
> other things that were triggered wrongly by >=
If so, then that's a separate problem: the later code
count = ((LATCH-1) - count) * TICK_SIZE;
delay_at_last_interrupt = (count + LATCH/2) / LATCH;
will cause delay_at_last_interrupt to be negative, so you'll see
backwards jumps in time and occasional wraparound of usecs as I did.
Perhaps a
if (count == LATCH)
count--;
after the reset code?
-jim
-
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 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:39 EST