From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 10 20:16:01 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A8F106564A; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:16:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A6D8FC17; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5609C46B0D; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A0F08A009; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:15:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Alexander Motin Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:15:47 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.4-CBSD-20110107; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201101101500.45783.jhb@freebsd.org> <4D2B67E4.70907@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D2B67E4.70907@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201101101515.47127.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:15:59 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, "Arno J. Klaassen" Subject: Re: Tyan S3992-E: hpet no longer working X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:16:01 -0000 On Monday, January 10, 2011 3:11:16 pm Alexander Motin wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Saturday, January 08, 2011 11:46:02 am Alexander Motin wrote: > >> Arno J. Klaassen wrote: > >>> John Baldwin writes: > >>> > >>>> On Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:32:08 pm Arno J. Klaassen wrote: > >>>>> John Baldwin writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:39:24 pm Arno J. Klaassen wrote: > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have (a long-lasting) problem to get hpet attached to a Tyan S3992-E > >>>>>>> MB. My last known working kernel is 7.1-PRERELEASE Sep 2 2008" , I > >>>>>>> rarely cared about this board for a while... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> At that time the dmesg said : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> acpi_hpet0: iomem 0xfed00000-0xfed003ff > >>>>>>> on acpi0 > >>>>>>> Timecounter "HPET" frequency 25000000 Hz quality 900 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> now it says (debug.acpi.hpet_test="1", debug.acpi.layer="ACPI_TIMER", > >>>>>>> debug.acpi.level="ACPI_LV_ALL_EXCEPTIONS" enabled) : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> hpet0: iomem 0xfed00000-0xfed03fff on > >>>>>>> acpi0 > >>>>>>> hpet0: vendor 0xffff, rev 0xff, 232831Hz 64bit, 32 timers, legacy route > >>>>>>> hpet0: t0: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t1: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t2: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t3: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t4: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t5: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t6: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t7: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t8: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t9: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t10: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t11: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t12: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t13: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t14: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t15: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t16: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t17: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t18: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t19: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t20: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t21: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t22: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t23: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t24: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t25: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t26: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t27: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t28: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t29: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t30: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: t31: irqs 0xffffffff (31), MSI, 64bit, periodic > >>>>>>> hpet0: 0.000000000: 4294967295 ... 4294967295 = 0 > >>>>>>> hpet0: time per call: 0 ns > >>>>>>> hpet0: HPET never increments, disabling > >>>>>>> device_attach: hpet0 attach returned 6 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Some things strike me : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 'vendor 0xffff, rev 0xf' and '4294967295 (== 0xffffffff)' as well > >>>>>>> as 232831Hz > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> the change in iomem range : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK : iomem 0xfed00000-0xfed003ff > >>>>>>> KO : iomem 0xfed00000-0xfed03fff > >>>>>>> ^^^^ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I can provide full dmesg and/or other extra needed info. > >>>>>> Arno sent me his acpidump which includes this: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Device (HPET) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0103")) > >>>>>> Name (_UID, 0x34) > >>>>>> Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> Return (0x0F) > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> Return (ResourceTemplate () > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, > >>>>>> 0xFED00000, // Address Base > >>>>>> 0x00004000, // Address Length > >>>>>> ) > >>>>>> }) > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So it does look like we are doing what the DSDT tells us in terms > >>>>>> of the memory address. > >>>>> yop. That said, I made yet another copy-paste error: the last known > >>>>> working kernel is 8.0-CURRENT Mar 1 2009 and the hpet says : > >>>>> > >>>>> acpi_hpet0: iomem 0xfed00000-0xfed003ff > >>>>> on acpi0 > >>>>> Timecounter "HPET" frequency 14318180 Hz quality 900 > >>>>> > >>>>> [only the frequency differs, the memory range indeed then was reported as > >>>>> 0x400 and not 0x4000 ] > >>>>> > >>>>>> Arno, are there any BIOS options that mention the HPET or have you updated > >>>>>> your BIOS since you booted the 7.1 kernel? > >>>>> yes .. I now use BIOS 1.06 released 06/09/09. > >>>>> Can I somehow 'overide' the bios and force the driver to use 0X400 as > >>>>> 'Address Length' in order to test if that makes the driver attach again? > >>>> Changing the length wouldn't make a difference as we would still read the same > >>>> registers since the start address is identical. I think the length is > >>>> symptomatic of the BIOS doing something differently that has disabled the > >>>> HPET. > >>> good point : this failure probably is not related to the FreeBSD-driver > >>> : in the current BIOS under the submenu 'South Bridge Chipset > >>> Configuration', the option to enable the HPET has disappeared (no > >>> mention of that in the release-notes), whilst it was present in the > >>> original BIOS, *and* disabled by default. > >>> > >>> Is it possible to write to some register during hpet_enable() and force > >>> the timer to tick, regardless of the BIOS? > >> Problem seems not about ticking, but about HPET registers working at > >> all. Returning ffh values for everything more probably tells that HPET > >> is just not in place where we look for it. > > > > Or that the BIOS has disabled it. Maybe it is buggy on this motherboard and > > newer BIOS revisions always disable it as a result? > > May be, but then it would be reasonable for BIOS to not report it's > presence instead of disabling. I'm a bit too cynical to depend on BIOS writers being reasonable. :) -- John Baldwin