From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 16:26:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 449D316A423; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:26:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A60B43D6D; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:26:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2TGQG9u000798; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:26:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <442AB520.5050505@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:26:08 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051230 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20060329020527.f8f087a4.conrads@cox.net> <20060329085117.GU80492@spc.org> <200603290841.50759.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200603290841.50759.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Bruce M Simpson , "Conrad J. Sabatier" , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device atpic to be deprecated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 29 Mar 2006 16:26:29 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 03:51 am, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:05:27AM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: >> >>>Is the plan still in effect to abolish this device? >> >>To my mind it wouldn't make much sense, given the sheer amount of hardware >>out there which doesn't have an IOAPIC, then again I'm probably out of >>touch with the state of interrupt handling in -CURRENT. > > > All amd64 machines (which is where atpic would be removed) have an APIC. > That's kind of like saying that ISA will be removed because there is PCI =-) Having an APIC doesn't necessarily guarantee that it works. There have been enough reports of problems on the mailing lists over time that I think it's a bit premature to declare the ATPIC dead. Also, is the ATPIC code in amd64 causing problems, holding back progress, or creating a maintenance burden? Scott