From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 12 09:56:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE16C16A4CE; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:56:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from regina.plastikos.com (216-107-106-250.wan.networktel.net [216.107.106.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD3643F75; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:56:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-212-172-144.jan.bellsouth.net [68.212.172.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by regina.plastikos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E0C6EECD; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id B9B4320F26; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:56:31 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:56:31 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20031112175631.GQ12248@over-yonder.net> References: <200311110220.10204@harrymail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: APIC-UP related panic X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:56:36 -0000 I, for one, am always pleased to see these sort of in-depth explanations of these sort of shims. On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:35:26AM -0500 I heard the voice of John Baldwin, and lo! it spake thus: > > It's documented in /sys/i386/conf/NOTES now along with 'device apic'. For > a longer explanation of what is happening: > [...] > > So, by default, to work around motherboards that don't hook IRQ 0 > up to the I/O APIC, we route IRQ 0 through the the 8259A PICs. > [...] > > However, if NO_MIXED_MODE works, that is actually the more desirable > way to run your system. How common is the need for this? Does turning of mixed mode when it's not needed give any real advantages higher up? -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"