Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:04:49 +0200 From: "Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com> To: "'John Baldwin'" <jhb@freebsd.org>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Cc: 'Nate Lawson' <nate@root.org> Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/acpica acpi_pci_link.c acpi_pcib.cacpi_pcib_acpi.c acpi_pcib_pci.c acpi_pcibvar.h Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA3CIG6mhg/EWalKPQ174DNwEAAAAA@telia.com> In-Reply-To: <200408111501.23593.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > He's using an I/O APIC. These are probably all entries that > don't have a link > device but just a hardwired global interrupt number. Did you > test that case? Yes, I have "device apic" in my kernel config file. Is this a bad thing to do for a UP system? I remember googling "device apic" and finding at least some info that seemed to indicate that it was off by default in GENERIC simply because there are a few I/O APICs that are buggy, and that it actually helped on systems with properly working chips. Should I leave it out of my kernel config? (I'm just about to recompile with Nate's extra debug output patch.) /Daniel Eriksson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA3CIG6mhg/EWalKPQ174DNwEAAAAA>