Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:04:49 +0200
From:      "Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com>
To:        "'John Baldwin'" <jhb@freebsd.org>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Cc:        'Nate Lawson' <nate@root.org>
Subject:   RE: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/acpica acpi_pci_link.c acpi_pcib.cacpi_pcib_acpi.c acpi_pcib_pci.c acpi_pcibvar.h
Message-ID:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA3CIG6mhg/EWalKPQ174DNwEAAAAA@telia.com>
In-Reply-To: <200408111501.23593.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
John Baldwin wrote:

> He's using an I/O APIC.  These are probably all entries that 
> don't have a link 
> device but just a hardwired global interrupt number.  Did you 
> test that case?

Yes, I have "device apic" in my kernel config file. Is this a bad thing to
do for a UP system?

I remember googling "device apic" and finding at least some info that seemed
to indicate that it was off by default in GENERIC simply because there are a
few I/O APICs that are buggy, and that it actually helped on systems with
properly working chips.

Should I leave it out of my kernel config? (I'm just about to recompile with
Nate's extra debug output patch.)

/Daniel Eriksson




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA3CIG6mhg/EWalKPQ174DNwEAAAAA>