Re: RFC: PCI SD host controller driver & mmc/mmcsd modules improvements
Taku YAMAMOTO <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.current,gmane.os.freebsd.devel.mobile,gmane.os.freebsd.devel.arm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:28:44 -0600 (MDT) "M. Warner Losh" <[email protected]> wrote: > In message: <[email protected]> > Alexander Motin <[email protected]> writes: > : No, it's opposite. With lower frequency I have proportionally smaller > : delays (more loop iterations). I don't remember exact numbers now, but > : general tendency was like: with 2400MHz - 10 iterations, with 1200MHz - > : 20 iterations and with 100MHz - 240 iterations. But neither syslog, nor > : my eyes saw any visible delay there. > > You have more iterations. I'd have expected less. This doesn't say > anything at all about DELAY, per se. If you are waiting for 1M cycles > at 100MHz, it is only .01s, while at 10MHz it is .1s. Delay is > implemented by reading a counter in the 8254 that's been calibrated. > So unless the clock that's clocking it is running FASTER, delay won't > be the source of additional iterations. > > Hmmm, looking at the i386 delay code, it looks like it depends on > tsc_frequency being right when tsc isn't broken. If that's set > bogusly, that could cause DELAY to be slower... I have a Core 2 Duo whose TSC ticks regardless of how EST is set. In conjunction of tsc_freq_changed() function defined in tsc.c, tsc_freq becomes lower than actual, thus shorter DELAY(). Maybe his machine has the same. -- -|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku | __ < <[email protected]> - A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. - _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"