* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
[not found] <372BFCD7961@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz>
@ 2001-09-14 18:43 ` VDA
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-20 23:38 ` bill davidsen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: VDA @ 2001-09-14 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vandrovec; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hello Petr,
Saturday, September 15, 2001, 10:16:59 AM, you wrote:
PV> Hi,
PV> I'll sleep much better with ...
>> +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
>> +{
>> + u8 v;
>> + printk("Trying to stomp on Athlon bug...\n");
>> + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
PV>+ if (v & 0x80) {
>> + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
>> + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
PV>+ }
How about this:
+static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
+{
+ u8 v;
+ pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
+ if(v & 0x80) {
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
+ v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
+ pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
+ }
+}
Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
What is more important now:
1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
2) Do Alan read these messages? ;-)
--
Best regards, VDA
mailto:VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
http://port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua/vda/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 18:43 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) VDA
@ 2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
` (2 more replies)
2001-09-20 23:38 ` bill davidsen
1 sibling, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-14 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: VDA; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel
> +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
> +{
> + u8 v;
> + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
> + if(v & 0x80) {
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
> + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
> + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
> + }
> +}
>
> Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
> What is more important now:
> 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
> 2) Do Alan read these messages? ;-)
Im watching the discussion with interest. If it proves to be the magic
bullet I will ask VIA for guidance on the issue
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
2001-09-15 23:23 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 18:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Knight @ 2001-09-15 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox, VDA; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel
On Friday 14 September 2001 04:16 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
> > +{
> > + u8 v;
> > + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
> > + if(v & 0x80) {
> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
> > + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
> > + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
> > + }
> > +}
> >
> > Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
> > What is more important now:
> > 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
> > 2) Do Alan read these messages? ;-)
>
> Im watching the discussion with interest. If it proves to be the magic
> bullet I will ask VIA for guidance on the issue
Not being a developer or guru on the internal software workings of the
hardware here, I have to ask, does this clear up some bug, or does it
disable the optimizations causing the problem? Is this a *fix* or a
band-aid?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
@ 2001-09-15 18:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Morton @ 2001-09-15 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tegeran; +Cc: linux-kernel
> > > +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
>> > +{
>> > + u8 v;
>> > + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
>> > + if(v & 0x80) {
>> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
>> > + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
>> > + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
>> > + }
>> > +}
>> >
>> > Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
>> > What is more important now:
>> > 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
>> > 2) Do Alan read these messages? ;-)
>>
>> Im watching the discussion with interest. If it proves to be the magic
>> bullet I will ask VIA for guidance on the issue
>
>Not being a developer or guru on the internal software workings of the
>hardware here, I have to ask, does this clear up some bug, or does it
>disable the optimizations causing the problem? Is this a *fix* or a
>band-aid?
AFAICT, it's a *fix*. The register in question is "for debug use
only, never write anything other than zero in it" but generally shows
non-zero when a faulty BIOS is installed. We're zeroing the bit that
appears to cause the problem. It's highly unlikely to be an extra
optimisation - if it is, it's an unsafe one.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi@cyberspace.org (not for attachments)
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/
geekcode: GCS$/E dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$
V? PS PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*)
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
@ 2001-09-15 23:23 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-15 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tegeran; +Cc: Alan Cox, VDA, Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel
> Not being a developer or guru on the internal software workings of the
> hardware here, I have to ask, does this clear up some bug, or does it
> disable the optimizations causing the problem? Is this a *fix* or a
> band-aid?
Without documentation - who knows
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
2001-09-15 18:02 ` Jonathan Morton
@ 2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
` (2 more replies)
2 siblings, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vandrovec @ 2001-09-16 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: VDA, alan
> +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
> +{
> + u8 v;
> + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
> + if(v & 0x80) {
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
> + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
> + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
> + }
> +}
>
> Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
> What is more important now:
> 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
Just by any chance - does anybody have KT133 (not KT133A)
datasheet? I just noticed at home that my KT133 has reg 55 set
to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
Thanks,
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
@ 2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
2001-09-16 8:08 ` Jan Niehusmann
2001-09-16 11:02 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-18 11:27 ` jury gerold
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Persvold @ 2001-09-16 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vandrovec; +Cc: linux-kernel, VDA, alan
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>
> > +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
> > +{
> > + u8 v;
> > + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
> > + if(v & 0x80) {
> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
> > + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
> > + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
> > + }
> > +}
> >
> > Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
> > What is more important now:
> > 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
>
> Just by any chance - does anybody have KT133 (not KT133A)
> datasheet? I just noticed at home that my KT133 has reg 55 set
> to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
> used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
Hmm, I have a "KT133 Athlon Norbridge, Preliminary Revision 1.0 May 12, 2000"
PDF. Register 55 is described like this :
Device 0 Offset 55 Debug .............................................. RW
7-5 Reserved (do not program)...................... default = 0
4 Write Policy for CPU Write to DRAM
0 Issue DRAM write when FIFO holds more
than two requests of DRAM controller idle . def
1 Disable Write Policy
3-0 Reserved (do not program)...................... default = 0
Which doesn't explain things much more since the bits in question (7, 3, 0) is
marked as "Reserved".
I also have a question; if "movntq; sfence" type of memory copy can cause data
corruption in kernel space, it can in theory also do so in user space right ?
So, if I'm right this bug could also be on machines running a 2.2 kernel with
userspace programs using 3DNow (or SSE even) instructions.
Regards,
--
Steffen Persvold | Scalable Linux Systems | Try out the world's best
mailto:sp@scali.no | http://www.scali.com | performing MPI implementation:
Tel: (+47) 2262 8950 | Olaf Helsets vei 6 | - ScaMPI 1.12.2 -
Fax: (+47) 2262 8951 | N0621 Oslo, NORWAY | >300MBytes/s and <4uS latency
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
@ 2001-09-16 8:08 ` Jan Niehusmann
2001-09-19 3:47 ` Albert D. Cahalan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Jan Niehusmann @ 2001-09-16 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steffen Persvold; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA, alan
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 09:21:49AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> I also have a question; if "movntq; sfence" type of memory copy can cause data
> corruption in kernel space, it can in theory also do so in user space right ?
> So, if I'm right this bug could also be on machines running a 2.2 kernel with
> userspace programs using 3DNow (or SSE even) instructions.
Sure. I did crash a computer running an old kernel (not 2.2 but
2.4.0-testX without the optimised fast_copy_page) from a non-privileged
user space program containing the same code as the optimised fast_copy_page.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
@ 2001-09-16 11:02 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 13:53 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-18 11:27 ` jury gerold
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Vojtech Pavlik @ 2001-09-16 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vandrovec; +Cc: linux-kernel, VDA, alan
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:52:07AM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > +static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
> > +{
> > + u8 v;
> > + pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
> > + if(v & 0x80) {
> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
> > + v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
> > + pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
> > + }
> > +}
> >
> > Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
> > What is more important now:
> > 1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
>
> Just by any chance - does anybody have KT133 (not KT133A)
> datasheet? I just noticed at home that my KT133 has reg 55 set
> to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
> used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
Same here ...
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 13:53 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-09-16 13:50 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 14:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 16:52 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Vojtech Pavlik @ 2001-09-16 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:53:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
> > > used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
> >
> > Same here ...
>
> One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
> see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
> blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
> unchanged.
I think it's possible to decide whether a chipset is KT133 or KT133A
based on the hostbridge revision. Mine is KT133 and is rev 03.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 11:02 ` Vojtech Pavlik
@ 2001-09-16 13:53 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 13:50 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 16:52 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-16 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vojtech Pavlik; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA, alan
> > to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
> > used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
>
> Same here ...
One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
unchanged.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 13:50 ` Vojtech Pavlik
@ 2001-09-16 14:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 17:01 ` Vojtech Pavlik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-16 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vojtech Pavlik; +Cc: Alan Cox, Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA
> > One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
> > see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
> > blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
> > unchanged.
>
> I think it's possible to decide whether a chipset is KT133 or KT133A
> based on the hostbridge revision. Mine is KT133 and is rev 03.
That tells you the chipset of the bridge. dmidecode dumps bios strings which
may tell you the chipset the bios was actually for..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 13:53 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 13:50 ` Vojtech Pavlik
@ 2001-09-16 16:52 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-17 0:58 ` Petr Vandrovec
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Roberto Jung Drebes @ 2001-09-16 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
> > > used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
> >
> > Same here ...
>
> One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
> see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
> blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
> unchanged.
I'm not sure if this is the output you are talking about (I see no KT133
strings on it) but here it goes (this motherboard uses KT133A and
exhibits the bug):
SMBIOS 2.3 present.
DMI 2.3 present.
40 structures occupying 1181 bytes.
DMI table at 0x000F0800.
Handle 0x0000
DMI type 0, 20 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor: Award Software International, Inc.
Version: 6.00 PG
Release: 07/05/2001
BIOS base: 0xE0000
ROM size: 192K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x000000007FCBDE90
Handle 0x0001
DMI type 1, 25 bytes.
System Information Block
Vendor: VIA Technologies, Inc.
Product: VT8363
Version:
Serial Number:
Handle 0x0002
DMI type 2, 8 bytes.
Board Information Block
Vendor: <http://www.abit.com.tw>
Product: 8363-686A(KT7,KT7A,KT7A-RAID,KT7E)
Version:
Serial Number:
Handle 0x0003
DMI type 3, 17 bytes.
Chassis Information Block
Vendor:
Chassis Type: Desktop
Version:
Serial Number:
Asset Tag:
Handle 0x0004
DMI type 4, 35 bytes.
Processor
Socket Designation: Socket A
Processor Type: Central Processor
Processor Family: M1
Processor Manufacturer: AMD
Processor Version: AMD Duron(tm)
Serial Number:
Asset Tag:
Vendor Part Number:
Handle 0x0006
DMI type 6, 12 bytes.
Memory Bank
Socket: BANK_0
Banks: 0 1
Speed: 60nS
Type:
Installed Size: 64Mbyte
Enabled Size: 64Mbyte
Handle 0x0007
DMI type 6, 12 bytes.
Memory Bank
Socket: BANK_1
Banks: 2 3
Speed: 60nS
Type:
Installed Size: 64Mbyte
Enabled Size: 64Mbyte
Handle 0x0008
DMI type 6, 12 bytes.
Memory Bank
Socket: BANK_2
Banks: 4 5
Speed: 60nS
Type: UNKNOWN
Installed Size: Not Installed
Enabled Size: Not Installed
Handle 0x000A
DMI type 7, 19 bytes.
Cache
Socket: Internal Cache
L1 Internal Cache: write-back
L1 Cache Size: 128K
L1 Cache Maximum: 128K
L1 Cache Type: Synchronous
Handle 0x000B
DMI type 7, 19 bytes.
Cache
Socket: External Cache
L2 External Cache: write-back
L2 Cache Size: 64K
L2 Cache Maximum: 64K
L2 Cache Type: Synchronous
Handle 0x000C
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: PRIMARY IDE
Internal Connector Type: On Board IDE
External Designator:
External Connector Type: None
Port Type: Other
Handle 0x000D
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: SECONDARY IDE
Internal Connector Type: On Board IDE
External Designator:
External Connector Type: None
Port Type: Other
Handle 0x000E
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: FDD
Internal Connector Type: On Board Floppy
External Designator:
External Connector Type: None
Port Type: (û
Handle 0x000F
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: COM1
Internal Connector Type: 9 Pin Dual Inline (pin 10 cut)
External Designator:
External Connector Type: DB-9 pin male
Port Type: Serial Port 16450 Compatible
Handle 0x0010
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: COM2
Internal Connector Type: 9 Pin Dual Inline (pin 10 cut)
External Designator:
External Connector Type: DB-9 pin male
Port Type: Serial Port 16450 Compatible
Handle 0x0011
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: LPT1
Internal Connector Type: DB-25 pin female
External Designator:
External Connector Type: DB-25 pin female
Port Type: Parallel Port ECP/EPP
Handle 0x0012
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: Keyboard
Internal Connector Type: Other
External Designator:
External Connector Type: PS/2
Port Type: Keyboard Port
Handle 0x0013
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: PS/2 Mouse
Internal Connector Type: PS/2
External Designator: No Detected
External Connector Type: PS/2
Port Type: Mouse Port
Handle 0x0014
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: ISA
Type: 16bit ISA
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x0015
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: In use.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x0016
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: In use.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x0017
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: In use.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x0018
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: In use.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x0019
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: Available.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x001A
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: PCI
Type: 32bit PCI
Status: Available.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x001B
DMI type 10, 8 bytes.
On Board Devices Information
Description: : Enabled
Type:
Description: : Enabled
Type:
Handle 0x001C
DMI type 9, 13 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: AGP
Type: 32bit AGP 2x
Status: Available.
Slot Features: 5v
Handle 0x001D
DMI type 8, 9 bytes.
Port Connector
Internal Designator: USB
Internal Connector Type: None
External Designator:
External Connector Type: Other
Port Type: USB
Handle 0x001E
DMI type 13, 22 bytes.
BIOS Language Information
Handle 0x001F
DMI type 16, 15 bytes.
Physical Memory Array
Handle 0x0020
DMI type 17, 27 bytes.
Memory Device
Handle 0x0403
DMI type 0, 0 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor: NoneNoneNoneNone
Version: \x11^["
Release:
BIOS base: 0x41420
ROM size: 4800K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x326B6E614200315F
Handle 0x0605
DMI type 3, 4 bytes.
Chassis Information Block
Vendor:
Chassis Type:
Version: \x03\x06
Serial Number:
Asset Tag:
Handle 0x0201
DMI type 9, 0 bytes.
Card Slot
Slot: \x01\x02\x02
Type:
Slot Features: 3.3v
Handle 0x0403
DMI type 0, 0 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor: NoneNoneNoneNone
Version: \x13\x0f$
Release:
BIOS base: 0x41420
ROM size: 4800K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x346B6E614200325F
Handle 0x0605
DMI type 3, 4 bytes.
Chassis Information Block
Vendor: \x03\x06
Chassis Type:
Version:
Serial Number:
Asset Tag:
Handle 0xFF00
DMI type 0, 0 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor:
Version:
Release:
BIOS base: 0x1F000
ROM size: 64K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x0000251314000020
Handle 0x01FF
DMI type 0, 255 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor:
Version:
Release:
BIOS base: 0x01000
ROM size: 0K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x0000000025131400
Handle 0x0000
DMI type 0, 0 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor:
Version:
Release:
BIOS base: 0x00000
ROM size: 0K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x0000000000000000
Handle 0x0000
DMI type 0, 0 bytes.
BIOS Information Block
Vendor:
Version:
Release:
BIOS base: 0x00000
ROM size: 0K
Capabilities:
Flags: 0x0000000000000000
--
Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br>
Porto Alegre, RS - Brasil
http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~drebes/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 14:47 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-09-16 17:01 ` Vojtech Pavlik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Vojtech Pavlik @ 2001-09-16 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:47:55PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
> > > see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
> > > blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
> > > unchanged.
> >
> > I think it's possible to decide whether a chipset is KT133 or KT133A
> > based on the hostbridge revision. Mine is KT133 and is rev 03.
>
> That tells you the chipset of the bridge. dmidecode dumps bios strings which
> may tell you the chipset the bios was actually for..
Ahh, yes.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 16:52 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
@ 2001-09-17 0:58 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-17 1:37 ` Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vandrovec @ 2001-09-17 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Jung Drebes; +Cc: linux-kernel, alan
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:52:36PM -0300, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > One way to test this hypthesis maybe to run dmidecode on the machines and
> > see if they report KT133 or KT133A. Its also possible some BIOS code does
> > blindly program bit 7 even tho its reserved and should have been kept
> > unchanged.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the output you are talking about (I see no KT133
> strings on it) but here it goes (this motherboard uses KT133A and
> exhibits the bug):
>
> Handle 0x0001
> DMI type 1, 25 bytes.
> System Information Block
> Vendor: VIA Technologies, Inc.
> Product: VT8363
> Version:
> Serial Number:
VT8363 is basic KT133. KT133A == VT8363A, at least according
to VT8363A datasheet...
> Handle 0x0002
> DMI type 2, 8 bytes.
> Board Information Block
> Vendor: <http://www.abit.com.tw>
> Product: 8363-686A(KT7,KT7A,KT7A-RAID,KT7E)
> Version:
> Serial Number:
... but there are listed both KT133 and KT133A based motherboards,
so maybe it is intentional?
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-17 0:58 ` Petr Vandrovec
@ 2001-09-17 1:37 ` Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
2001-09-17 14:59 ` Jonathan Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams @ 2001-09-17 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:52:36PM -0300, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
>
> > Handle 0x0002
> > DMI type 2, 8 bytes.
> > Board Information Block
> > Vendor: <http://www.abit.com.tw>
> > Product: 8363-686A(KT7,KT7A,KT7A-RAID,KT7E)
> > Version:
> > Serial Number:
>
> ... but there are listed both KT133 and KT133A based motherboards,
> so maybe it is intentional?
The same south bridge is used for both the KT133 and the KT133A.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ignacio@openservices.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-17 1:37 ` Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
@ 2001-09-17 14:59 ` Jonathan Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Morton @ 2001-09-17 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams, linux-kernel
> > ... but there are listed both KT133 and KT133A based motherboards,
>> so maybe it is intentional?
>
>The same south bridge is used for both the KT133 and the KT133A.
And also for other northbridges. I've seen the 82c686a used on an
i810 board, which is currently in my friend's games machine.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi@cyberspace.org (not for attachments)
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/
geekcode: GCS$/E dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$
V? PS PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*)
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
2001-09-16 11:02 ` Vojtech Pavlik
@ 2001-09-18 11:27 ` jury gerold
2 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jury gerold @ 2001-09-18 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: alan
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>+static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
>>+{
>>+ u8 v;
>>+ pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
>>+ if(v & 0x80) {
>>+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
>>+ v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
>>+ pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
>>+ }
>>+}
>>
>>Well, these are cosmetic changes anyway...
>>What is more important now:
>>1) Do we have people who still see Athlon bug with the patch?
>>
>
>Just by any chance - does anybody have KT133 (not KT133A)
>datasheet? I just noticed at home that my KT133 has reg 55 set
>to 0x89 and it happilly lives... So maybe some BIOS vendors
>used KT133 instead of KT133A BIOS image?
>
Same here ... with a board from gigabyte
I had to replace a 128MB PC100 RAM module (maybe related, maybe not)
but now it works.
Gerold Jury
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 8:08 ` Jan Niehusmann
@ 2001-09-19 3:47 ` Albert D. Cahalan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Albert D. Cahalan @ 2001-09-19 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Niehusmann; +Cc: Steffen Persvold, Petr Vandrovec, linux-kernel, VDA, alan
Jan Niehusmann writes:
> Sure. I did crash a computer running an old kernel (not 2.2 but
> 2.4.0-testX without the optimised fast_copy_page) from a non-privileged
> user space program containing the same code as the optimised fast_copy_page.
Port this to Windows if you want to raise Hell. Call it something
nasty (like "AMD/VIA bug exploit") to get attention.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 18:43 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) VDA
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-09-20 23:38 ` bill davidsen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2001-09-20 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
In article <1292125035.20010914214303@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> you write:
| + printk(KERN_NOTICE "Stomping on Athlon bug.\n");
Okay, I'm pedantic. It's not an Athlon bug, is it? It's a chipset bug?
No? If so should say so!
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Prodigy Internet Server Group
Project Leader, USENET news
914-448-1241
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-16 21:53 ` Carsten Leonhardt
@ 2001-09-19 3:55 ` Dan Hollis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Dan Hollis @ 2001-09-19 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Leonhardt; +Cc: linux-kernel
On 16 Sep 2001, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br> writes:
> > I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the
> > diff to pci-pc.c:
> I tried it here on my Tyan Trinity KT-A (S2390B), and it works!
Has anyone compared memcopy speed with it on and with it off?
Eg does it slow down memory accesses even slower than non-optimized
memcopy?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-15 7:15 ` brian
@ 2001-09-19 1:30 ` brian
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: brian @ 2001-09-19 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Jung Drebes, Eric W. Biederman, Chris Vandomelen,
linux-kernel, VDA
I just tried the 'Athlon Bug stomper #2 bit 7 patch version 1' on a 2nd
matchine, 900 MHz Duron system with an Epox 8KTA3+ MB, and it too
is now running fine with an Athlon optimized kernel, when before it
would oops to death on boot.
Shall I keep posting success reports or are people convinced this
fix works?
> > > On 13 Sep 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Anyone want to generate a kernel patch so this fix can get some wider
> > > > testing?
>
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> > > I'll try to isolate the single bit in the register that is causing the
> > > fault and will send the diff.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 05:27:49AM -0300, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> > I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the diff to
> > pci-pc.c:
>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:15:30AM -0700, brian@worldcontrol.com wrote:
> I just tried the patch and for the first time I've been able to
> successfully boot and run a 2.4 kernel with Athlon optimizations.
> ...
> The machine that has been successful, and the only one I tried, is an
> 800 MHz Duron system with an Epox 8KTA3+ MB which is now running fine
> with linux 2.4.9ac10 + the Athlon Bug stomper #2 bit 7 patch version 1.
--
Brian Litzinger <brian@worldcontrol.com>
Copyright (c) 2000 By Brian Litzinger, All Rights Reserved
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 8:27 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-09-15 7:15 ` brian
@ 2001-09-16 21:53 ` Carsten Leonhardt
2001-09-19 3:55 ` Dan Hollis
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Leonhardt @ 2001-09-16 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br> writes:
> I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the
> diff to pci-pc.c:
I tried it here on my Tyan Trinity KT-A (S2390B), and it works!
Very nice!
Thanks,
leo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-15 18:00 ` Liakakis Kostas
@ 2001-09-15 20:28 ` VDA
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: VDA @ 2001-09-15 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liakakis Kostas; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hello Liakakis,
Saturday, September 15, 2001, 9:00:41 PM, you wrote:
LK> Hate to post a me-too, but my Asus A7V133 does have 55.7 set (reg 55 ==
LK> 0x89) and is running fine with 2.4.9-ac9 and K7 optimizations. BIOS
LK> revision is 1005A, memory is 3x256MB noname DIMMs.
Ok, but we don't see KT133A mobos with Athlon/Duron and 55.7=1
to fail always. It can start failing with faster CPU, different
memory or once in a blue moon - nobody knows.
It is better to turn that bit off for good,
unless VIA and BIOS writers will enlighten
us what is 55.7 (and 55.6-0 too).
--
Best regards, VDA
mailto:VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
http://port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua/vda/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
@ 2001-09-15 18:00 ` Liakakis Kostas
2001-09-15 20:28 ` VDA
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Liakakis Kostas @ 2001-09-15 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hate to post a me-too, but my Asus A7V133 does have 55.7 set (reg 55 ==
0x89) and is running fine with 2.4.9-ac9 and K7 optimizations. BIOS
revision is 1005A, memory is 3x256MB noname DIMMs.
-K.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> I'm using the ZT bios with ABIT KT7A and I have not encountered any OOPSes or
> anything with Athlon/Duron optimized kernels. I've been using the -ac kernels
> since 2.4.0, upgrading regularly. I'm running a 1200 MHz TBird. I'm reluctant
> to try later BIOSes because #1: Mine works as it is now, and #2: I'm afraid of
[snip]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 8:27 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
@ 2001-09-15 7:15 ` brian
2001-09-19 1:30 ` brian
2001-09-16 21:53 ` Carsten Leonhardt
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: brian @ 2001-09-15 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Jung Drebes
Cc: Eric W. Biederman, Chris Vandomelen, linux-kernel, VDA
> > On 13 Sep 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Anyone want to generate a kernel patch so this fix can get some wider
> > > testing?
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> > I'll try to isolate the single bit in the register that is causing the
> > fault and will send the diff.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 05:27:49AM -0300, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the diff to
> pci-pc.c:
I just tried the patch and for the first time I've been able to
successfully boot and run a 2.4 kernel with Athlon optimizations.
I have 11 machines all of which oops to death trying to boot
2.4.9ac5 with Athlon optimizations.
The machine that has been successful, and the only one I tried, is an
800 MHz Duron system with an Epox 8KTA3+ MB which is now running fine
with linux 2.4.9ac10 + the Athlon Bug stomper #2 bit 7 patch version 1.
I'll try some more of the machines on Monday.
--
Brian Litzinger <brian@worldcontrol.com>
Copyright (c) 2000 By Brian Litzinger, All Rights Reserved
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 8:27 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) Roberto Jung Drebes
@ 2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-09-15 18:00 ` Liakakis Kostas
2001-09-15 7:15 ` brian
2001-09-16 21:53 ` Carsten Leonhardt
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Byron Stanoszek @ 2001-09-14 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Jung Drebes
Cc: Eric W. Biederman, Chris Vandomelen, linux-kernel, VDA
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> +/* Fixes some oopses on fast_copy_page when it uses 'movntq's
> + * instead of 'movq's on Athlon/Duron optimized kernels.
> + * Bit 7 at offset 0x55 seems to be responsible.
> + * > Device 0 Offset 55 - Debug (RW)
> + * > 7-0 Reserved (do not program). default = 0
> + * > *** ABIT KT7A 3R BIOS: non-zero!? (oopses)
> + * > *** ABIT KT7A YH BIOS: zero. (works)
> + */
I'm using the ZT bios with ABIT KT7A and I have not encountered any OOPSes or
anything with Athlon/Duron optimized kernels. I've been using the -ac kernels
since 2.4.0, upgrading regularly. I'm running a 1200 MHz TBird. I'm reluctant
to try later BIOSes because #1: Mine works as it is now, and #2: I'm afraid of
'increased memory stability' changes that would decrease performance or raise
CPU temperature (as one BIOS changelog had mentioned).
Output of /proc/bus/pci/00/00.0:
000: 06 11 05 03 06 00 10 22 03 00 00 06 00 08 00 00 "
010: 08 00 00 d8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 7b 14 01 a4 {
030: 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
040: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
050: 18 a3 ec b4 47 89 10 10 08 80 00 00 08 08 0c 10 G
060: 3c 2a 00 20 52 52 52 c6 45 0c 43 0f 08 5f 00 00 <* RRR E C _
070: dc 88 cc 0c 0e 80 d2 00 01 b4 19 02 00 00 00 00
080: 0f 40 00 00 c0 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 @
090: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 00 00 2
0A0: 02 c0 20 00 17 02 00 1f 00 00 00 00 2f 12 14 00 /
0B0: 49 da 88 58 31 ff 80 05 67 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I X1 g
0C0: 01 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0D0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
*
0F0: 00 00 00 00 00 03 03 00 22 00 00 00 00 00 91 06 "
The ZT bios has bit 7 of offset 0x55 set, too.
This is an unmodified 2.4.8-ac7.
-Byron
--
Byron Stanoszek Ph: (330) 644-3059
Systems Programmer Fax: (330) 644-8110
Commercial Timesharing Inc. Email: byron@comtime.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 7:34 Athlon bug stomping #2 Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 8:27 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) Roberto Jung Drebes
@ 2001-09-14 9:26 ` Jeff Lightfoot
1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Lightfoot @ 2001-09-14 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Jung Drebes; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 05:27:49 -0300 (EST)
Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br> wrote:
> I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the diff
> to pci-pc.c:
[snip patch]
I tried it with my IWill 266 Plus and Althon 1.4G
Things now boot up normally with Athlon Optimizations turned on.
Before this, those same optimizations would produce oops galore on
system startup.
Let me know if you want more system info.
--
Jeff Lightfoot -- jeffml at pobox.com -- http://thefoots.com/
"How can I sing like a girl and not be stigmatized by the rest of
the world?" -- TMBG
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)
2001-09-14 7:34 Athlon bug stomping #2 Roberto Jung Drebes
@ 2001-09-14 8:27 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
` (2 more replies)
2001-09-14 9:26 ` Jeff Lightfoot
1 sibling, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Roberto Jung Drebes @ 2001-09-14 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman; +Cc: Chris Vandomelen, linux-kernel, VDA
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Roberto Jung Drebes wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Anyone want to generate a kernel patch so this fix can get some wider
> > testing?
>
> I'll try to isolate the single bit in the register that is causing the
> fault and will send the diff.
I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the diff to
pci-pc.c:
=================================================
--- linux-2.4.9/arch/i386/kernel/pci-pc.c.orig Fri Sep 14 05:03:59 2001
+++ linux-2.4.9/arch/i386/kernel/pci-pc.c Fri Sep 14 05:12:28 2001
@@ -701,6 +701,22 @@
return rt;
}
+/* Fixes some oopses on fast_copy_page when it uses 'movntq's
+ * instead of 'movq's on Athlon/Duron optimized kernels.
+ * Bit 7 at offset 0x55 seems to be responsible.
+ * > Device 0 Offset 55 - Debug (RW)
+ * > 7-0 Reserved (do not program). default = 0
+ * > *** ABIT KT7A 3R BIOS: non-zero!? (oopses)
+ * > *** ABIT KT7A YH BIOS: zero. (works)
+ */
+static void __init pci_fixup_athlon_bug(struct pci_dev *d)
+{
+ u8 v;
+ printk("Trying to stomp on Athlon bug...\n");
+ pci_read_config_byte(d, 0x55, &v);
+ v &= 0x7f; /* clear bit 55.7 */
+ pci_write_config_byte(d, 0x55, v);
+}
int pcibios_set_irq_routing(struct pci_dev *dev, int pin, int irq)
{
@@ -966,6 +982,8 @@
{ PCI_FIXUP_HEADER, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, pci_fixup_ide_bases },
{ PCI_FIXUP_HEADER, PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_5597, pci_fixup_latency },
{ PCI_FIXUP_HEADER, PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_5598, pci_fixup_latency },
+ { PCI_FIXUP_HEADER, PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8363_0,
+ pci_fixup_athlon_bug },
{ PCI_FIXUP_HEADER, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82371AB_3, pci_fixup_piix4_acpi },
{ 0 }
};
=================================================
--
Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br>
Porto Alegre, RS - Brasil
http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~drebes/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-20 23:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <372BFCD7961@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz>
2001-09-14 18:43 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) VDA
2001-09-14 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 17:44 ` Nicholas Knight
2001-09-15 23:23 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-15 18:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-09-16 1:52 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-16 7:21 ` Steffen Persvold
2001-09-16 8:08 ` Jan Niehusmann
2001-09-19 3:47 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2001-09-16 11:02 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 13:53 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 13:50 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 14:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-16 17:01 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-16 16:52 ` Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-17 0:58 ` Petr Vandrovec
2001-09-17 1:37 ` Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
2001-09-17 14:59 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-09-18 11:27 ` jury gerold
2001-09-20 23:38 ` bill davidsen
2001-09-14 7:34 Athlon bug stomping #2 Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 8:27 ` Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2) Roberto Jung Drebes
2001-09-14 18:19 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-09-15 18:00 ` Liakakis Kostas
2001-09-15 20:28 ` VDA
2001-09-15 7:15 ` brian
2001-09-19 1:30 ` brian
2001-09-16 21:53 ` Carsten Leonhardt
2001-09-19 3:55 ` Dan Hollis
2001-09-14 9:26 ` Jeff Lightfoot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).