Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:54:57 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Neel Natu <neelnatu@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bhyve and legacy Message-ID: <201401231454.58012.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAFgRE9FC9zzgkNw8voa7T9dRsuUzUOmBdz6GmgC4bYUbnzXNHg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201401221715.42164.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAFgRE9FC9zzgkNw8voa7T9dRsuUzUOmBdz6GmgC4bYUbnzXNHg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:48:20 pm Neel Natu wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:15 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Is there any interest in supporting more "legacy" setups via bhyve? In > > particular, I'd like to take a whack at improving the PCI INTx support, but > > that can involve several things such as possibly implementing 8259A support > > and a PCI interrupt router vs always assuming that we have APICs. If we do > > I would love to see PCI INTx support so we can do legacy interrupts > for the virtio device models. > > However, does that require going all the way back to 8259 style > interrupts? It should work fine with IOAPIC, no? No, it does not. It was more a question of what was desired. The first step would probably just be to get the IOAPIC case working well and make sure the _PRT is populated in ACPI and MP Table is correct. (For example, in typical systems, ISA IRQs are not used for PCI INTx on an I/O APIC, but interrupt pins above 15 are used). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201401231454.58012.jhb>