Re: hpet_disable() call sites

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.03.12 at 14:58, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Is there any reason why hpet_disable() should not also be called
> >> from (or some equivalent action be taken, perhaps including clearing
> >> certain bits in the individual counters' configuration registers, which
> >> are apparently - but perhaps wrongly - implied to be clear in e.g.
> >> hpet_set_mode(), in) hpet_enable()?
> > 
> > No, there is no particular reason why we don't clear those registers.
> 
> In that case I'll prepare a patch to do so. One related question is
> whether use of the HPET should be suppressed when any bit unknown
> to the kernel is found set, or whether unknown bits should also be
> cleared.

Hmm. Good question. We might at least add a printk to alert about it.

Thanks,

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