Anders Gavare wrote: > Hi currenters! > > On Wednesday 29 March 2006, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 12:08, Scott Long wrote: >> >>> John Baldwin wrote: >>> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:26, Scott Long 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. >>> >> I have to make sure it really works for everyone first though before >> removing it would really be viable. :-/ >> > > The GENERIC 7.0-BETA2 kernel does not boot on my 1.8 GHz amd64 laptop > (and HP Pavilion ze2000). Not in safe mode, not without ACPI, not > without apic0/sio0/sio1 (which is the usual trick on this machine). > > After some detective work, however, I noticed that with "device atpic" > added, 7.0-BETA2 works fine on this machine. (I took a chance and > updated my sources from 6-STABLE to 7-STABLE, added the device, and now > I am running 7.0-BETA2. If I hadn't already had FreeBSD installed, it > would not have been possible to get it to boot, though, so this feels > kind of critical.) > > My question is: Is it possible to add "device atpic" again in time for > the 7.0 release? What is the possible negative impact of adding it? > > > Anders > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" > > My HP Pavillion dv9420us only boots after some workarounds, but the atpic doesn't make any difference to it--it doesn't even detect one. jmcReceived on Sat Nov 10 2007 - 02:10:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC