Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:52:30 -0600
From:      Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com.au>
Cc:        listuser <listuser@h2o.journey.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP: EISA cards. 
Message-ID:  <199707170352.VAA11792@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:36:57 %2B0800." <199707170336.LAA23469@spinner.dialix.com.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter,

> Again, remember that the feature that we are talking about (DMA Chaining)
> ...
> purpose of building a high performance system with multiple CPUs anyway.

a related aspect of this is the functionality we gain by programming IO APIC
pin 0 as a 'regular' INT.  Specifically, the 8259 becomes nothing more than a
buffer chip for the 8254 timer.  It probably delays the clock INT by about
10nsec, but this is probably pretty constant.  And the timer returns
to being on vec[ 0 ] as a result.  We might consider programming ALL systems
this way, whether they connect the timer to IO APIC pin 2 or not.  This would
eliminate the "song and dance" I go thru using the vec[] array and the
indirections thru it to get to the hardware resumption routines.
This may well be why intel designed the PR440FX board to NOT have an IO APIC
pin 2 connection to the timer.

--
Steve Passe	| powered by
smp@csn.net	|            Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707170352.VAA11792>