Re: Interrupt storm

John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2005 02:41 pm, Antoine Brodin wrote:
> > John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > > Ok, I see the issue now.  The problem is that the BIOS sets the IRQ
> > > registers in the PCI devices to values that don't match how the links are
> > > programmed and we tend to trust the BIOS over the links in those cases. 
> > > Can you tell me what IRQ sk0 gets if you don't use ACPI?  Does it get 5
> > > or 9?  If it gets 9, does it work ok?
> > >
> > > You can try this patch for ACPI.  Unfortunately, some BIOSes lie when you
> > > ask a link which IRQ it is routed to, so I'm not sure if this patch can
> > > be committed as is.  Nate, do you know if such BIOSen only return no IRQ
> > > at all (0 or 255) when they lie rather than a bogus "valid" IRQ?
> >
> > Without ACPI, sk0 gets irq 5 and it works ok.
> >
> > With your patch and ACPI, sk0 no longer timeouts, and it's usable.
> > But I still have interrupt storms.
> > dmesg: http://bsd.miki.eu.org/~antoine/current+acpi+patch.dmesg
> 
> Well, all the interrupts are now routed the same as with the old ACPI code.  
> Perhaps, can you try commenting out the code that calls _DIS in 
> acpi_pci_link_attach()?  Specifically, here:
> And let me know if that makes a difference.

Thanks ! That makes everything work well !
Also, backing out your previous change and only #if0ing the code that
calls _DIS makes everything work well too.
So I guess the _DIS methods of my BIOS are the culprit.

Antoine