[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Keyboard lockup with NetBSD5
Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> Ok. I had a look at the 4.0 source. I'm not sure if it had the same
>> precision (it probably has), but it definitely had less overhead.
> The resolution is 8 cpu clocks for 68020/68030, 3 cpu clocks for
> 68040 (or was it: 8 for 020, 3 for 030/040 ?) and 1 cpu clock for
> 68060. It's pre-calibrated to the fastest known CPU clocks of each
> type (which might make delays up to three times as long as nominal
> if used on a 16 MHz 68030), and then calibrated when clock.c
Then it was clearly better than the current implementation, and I agree that
we should revive the pre-5.0 code here. The new timecounter is completely
>> A timecounter has to return the current value of a counter with a
>> fixed frequency. How can you do that with a calibrated loop?
> Yesyes. But why would that influence the DELAY/delay implementation?
Not at all, from what I have seen. The calibration can still take place
_ Frank Wille (frank%phoenix.owl.de@localhost)
_ // http://sun.hasenbraten.de/~frank/
\X/ Phx @ #AmigaGer
Main Index |
Thread Index |