Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:41:06 +0200 From: Antoine Brodin <antoine.brodin@laposte.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: Interrupt storm Message-ID: <20050405204106.15e9d993.antoine.brodin@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: <200504051349.13620.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <b37cb09705032911295ce15f84@mail.gmail.com> <200504051110.35735.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050405185831.2484695e.antoine.brodin@laposte.net> <200504051349.13620.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Ok, I see the issue now. The problem is that the BIOS sets the IRQ registers > in the PCI devices to values that don't match how the links are programmed > and we tend to trust the BIOS over the links in those cases. Can you tell me > what IRQ sk0 gets if you don't use ACPI? Does it get 5 or 9? If it gets 9, > does it work ok? > > You can try this patch for ACPI. Unfortunately, some BIOSes lie when you ask > a link which IRQ it is routed to, so I'm not sure if this patch can be > committed as is. Nate, do you know if such BIOSen only return no IRQ at all > (0 or 255) when they lie rather than a bogus "valid" IRQ? Without ACPI, sk0 gets irq 5 and it works ok. With your patch and ACPI, sk0 no longer timeouts, and it's usable. But I still have interrupt storms. dmesg: http://bsd.miki.eu.org/~antoine/current+acpi+patch.dmesg Antoine
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050405204106.15e9d993.antoine.brodin>