device atpic to be deprecated?

John Merryweather Cooper john_m_cooper at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 9 19:10:16 PST 2007


Anders Gavare wrote:
> Hi currenters!
>
> On Wednesday 29 March 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
>   
>> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 12:08, Scott Long wrote:
>>     
>>> John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:26, Scott Long 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?
>>>>>           
>>>> I think that once the lapic timer stuff was added almost all of
>>>> the APIC issues I was aware of went away on amd64 that were fixed
>>>> by using device atpic instead. Most of the earlier problems were
>>>> due to chipsets not setting up pin 0 as extint, etc. but all that
>>>> is no longer relevant when we switched to using the lapic timer
>>>> and stopped using irq0 and irq8 with APIC. This is the first I've
>>>> heard since the lapic timer stuff that APIC didn't work on an
>>>> amd64 box, and device atpic has been off by default in HEAD for
>>>> quite a while now. If we were able to require APIC on amd64, then
>>>> we might be able to try out some optimizations and other things I
>>>> haven't bothered with since they wouldn't be feasible on i386.
>>>>         
>>> Fine, remove it.
>>>       
>> I have to make sure it really works for everyone first though before
>> removing it would really be viable. :-/
>>     
>
> The GENERIC 7.0-BETA2 kernel does not boot on my 1.8 GHz amd64 laptop
> (and HP Pavilion ze2000). Not in safe mode, not without ACPI, not
> without apic0/sio0/sio1 (which is the usual trick on this machine).
>
> After some detective work, however, I noticed that with "device atpic"
> added, 7.0-BETA2 works fine on this machine. (I took a chance and
> updated my sources from 6-STABLE to 7-STABLE, added the device, and now
> I am running 7.0-BETA2. If I hadn't already had FreeBSD installed, it
> would not have been possible to get it to boot, though, so this feels
> kind of critical.)
>
> My question is: Is it possible to add "device atpic" again in time for
> the 7.0 release?  What is the possible negative impact of adding it?
>
>
> Anders
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>   
My HP Pavillion dv9420us only boots after some workarounds, but the
atpic doesn't make any difference to it--it doesn't even detect one.

jmc



More information about the freebsd-current mailing list