Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:14:19 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.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: <200509301014.21572.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <433C441A.8050508@root.org> References: <20050928192056.B7E6D16A42B@hub.freebsd.org> <200509291406.19775.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <433C441A.8050508@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 29 September 2005 03:44 pm, Nate Lawson wrote: > 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? Getting interrupt controllers into new-bus is a far-off goal I think. It needs all that multipass stuff in place first. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509301014.21572.jhb>