Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:44:26 -0700
From:      Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/bge if_bge.c
Message-ID:  <433C441A.8050508@root.org>
In-Reply-To: <200509291406.19775.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20050928192056.B7E6D16A42B@hub.freebsd.org> <200509291054.40587.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <433C291E.3050409@root.org> <200509291406.19775.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2005 01:49 pm, Nate Lawson wrote:
> 
>>John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday 28 September 2005 04:36 pm, Nate Lawson wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've heard disabling apic helps T42s, otherwise they get a hard hang.
>>>>It's difficult to print the driver progress while suspending because the
>>>>function call stack is recursive, not iterative.  For example,
>>>>root_suspend -> pci_suspend -> fxp_suspend -> mii_suspend (if that
>>>>exists).  You'd have to add a printf in every driver and bus.  A better
>>>>way might be to add printf or KTR to bus_generic_suspend() to print the
>>>>device name before calling its method.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, I'm working on committing a patch that adds KTR to acpi so we can
>>>>track down issues like this although the device suspending stuff should
>>>>be done separately as listed above.
>>>
>>>BTW, the issue with APIC on some systems is that when we use the APIC,
>>>the current code doesn't end up doing suspend/resume for the ATPIC and so
>>>it ends up in some random state.
>>
>>Ah, is a fix for that upcoming?  :)
> 
> 
> It's in my head.  I think I need to rework the suspend/resume support in the 
> x86 interrupt code to instead of doing all the interrupt sources, having the 
> atpic and apic code register pic devices in a separate list that gets 
> iterated on suspend and resume.

I think that makes sense since they have different programming methods. 
  Does it make sense to separate them into different newbus devices as 
well, so you get proper ordering?

-- 
Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?433C441A.8050508>