John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:26, Scott Long wrote: > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday 29 March 2006 03:51 am, Bruce M Simpson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:05:27AM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Is the plan still in effect to abolish this device? >>>> >>>>To my mind it wouldn't make much sense, given the sheer amount of hardware >>>>out there which doesn't have an IOAPIC, then again I'm probably out of >>>>touch with the state of interrupt handling in -CURRENT. >>> >>> >>>All amd64 machines (which is where atpic would be removed) have an APIC. >>> >> >>That's kind of like saying that ISA will be removed because there is PCI >>=-) Having an APIC doesn't necessarily guarantee that it works. There >>have been enough reports of problems on the mailing lists over time that >>I think it's a bit premature to declare the ATPIC dead. Also, is the >>ATPIC code in amd64 causing problems, holding back progress, or creating >>a maintenance burden? > > > I think that once the lapic timer stuff was added almost all of the APIC > issues I was aware of went away on amd64 that were fixed by using device > atpic instead. Most of the earlier problems were due to chipsets not > setting up pin 0 as extint, etc. but all that is no longer relevant when > we switched to using the lapic timer and stopped using irq0 and irq8 with > APIC. This is the first I've heard since the lapic timer stuff that APIC > didn't work on an amd64 box, and device atpic has been off by default in > HEAD for quite a while now. If we were able to require APIC on amd64, then > we might be able to try out some optimizations and other things I haven't > bothered with since they wouldn't be feasible on i386. > Fine, remove it. ScottReceived on Wed Mar 29 2006 - 15:09:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:54 UTC