Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:03:24 -0700 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> To: BRETT_GLASS@infoworld.com Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More or fewer IRQs? Message-ID: <199609190803.BAA08004@MindBender.serv.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 19 Sep 96 00:44:45 -0800. <9608188431.AA843112557@ccgate.infoworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>If what you say is true, the only place I can be sure to save time (this is
>on a 486DX4/100) is at the ICU by setting those AUTO_EOI flags. But how
>safe are these? I was getting missed IDE completion interrupts with a
>kernel that had AUTO_EOI_1 on, but don't know if that was the only source
>of the problem. (I've changed a LOT of options in more recent kernels.)
I have run a kernel with AUTO_EOI_1 and AUTO_EOI_2 both enabled, with
two IDE drives, and I didn't have a single problem. This was on an
ALR 386 EISA motherboard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609190803.BAA08004>