From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 5 18:41:08 2005 Return-Path: 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 8EDFE16A4CF; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:41:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from barton.dreadbsd.org (massena-4-82-67-196-50.fbx.proxad.net [82.67.196.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7B843D5C; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:41:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from antoine@massena-4-82-67-196-50.fbx.proxad.net) Received: from barton.dreadbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by barton.dreadbsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j35If73R000730; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:41:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from antoine@massena-4-82-67-196-50.fbx.proxad.net) Received: (from antoine@localhost) by barton.dreadbsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j35If6cx000729; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:41:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from antoine) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:41:06 +0200 From: Antoine Brodin To: John Baldwin Message-Id: <20050405204106.15e9d993.antoine.brodin@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: <200504051349.13620.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200504051110.35735.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050405185831.2484695e.antoine.brodin@laposte.net> <200504051349.13620.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.7 (GTK+ 2.6.4; i386-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: k-gleb@yandex.ru cc: dan.cojocar@gmail.com cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: Interrupt storm X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:41:08 -0000 John Baldwin 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