Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 03:40:18 GMT From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/91408 : [irq] ata(4) failure: SETFEATURES SET TRANSFER MODE semaphore timeout !! DANGER Will Robinson !! Message-ID: <200605020340.k423eIw7018054@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/91408; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru>, bug-followup@freebsd.org, lightsquid@logvinov.com Subject: Re: kern/91408 : [irq] ata(4) failure: SETFEATURES SET TRANSFER MODE semaphore timeout !! DANGER Will Robinson !! Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:37:21 +0800 John Baldwin wrote: > > On Sunday 30 April 2006 04:44, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:54:09PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > With 6.1-RC of today I have the same sympthoms as with 5.4-RELEASE > > > > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/80815): > > > > > > > > 1) machine suffers from ATA timeouts if ACPI is fully enabled; > > > > 2) debug.acpi.disable="pci_link" in /boot/loader.conf eliminates the > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > So, Soren seems to be right: this is interrupt routing problem > > > > and not ATA problem. > > > > > > > > The question is: should I consider the workaround mentioned above as > > > > solution? What will I miss if I keep debug.acpi.disable="pci_link" forever? > > > > > > I think it's dangerous > > > > What kind of trouble I am "asking for" while using debug.acpi.disable="pci_link"? > > Because ACPI is rather intertwined, so it is expecting to tell the OS how to > route interrupts in a certain way, and if you enable ACPI the BIOS is expecting > you to use it completely. > > > > and that you should just disable ACPI altogether if you wish to do that. > > > > I think I do not wish that :-) > > Do so at your own risk then. > > > This machive has four OS now: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE (uses APM to turn power off), > > Windows 98SE and Windows XP SP2 (use ACPI, no problems with it). > > > > Would I be allowed to turn power off with 6.1 without ACPI enabled? > > Would it be possible not only for 'shutdown -p', but for ACPI power button too? > > No, the power button only works with ACPI. shutdown -p can work using apm > as on 4.x. > > > > Can you provide verbose dmesg's for the > > > case with pci_link disabled and the case where it is not disabled? > > > > Here comes dmesg.acpi (ACPI is fully enabled): > > Well, all the IRQs are the same and none of the interrupts were changed to > be edge triggered or anything like that, so it's not a problem with > interrupt routing. If the interrupt routing were busted, the IRQ numbers > would be different. All the pci_link devices do is help the OS figure out > which IRQ number a device uses. If those numbers are all the same, then > interrupt routing is not the issue. Does it mean that it is safe for this machine to use pci_link really? And if it's not interrupt routing problem, what else pci_link affects to? Eugene Grosbein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605020340.k423eIw7018054>