Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:20:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AUTO_EOI_* ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970808071848.28316A-100000@harlie.bfd.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970807204645.187A-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Tom Samplonius wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > Tom Samplonius scribbled this message on Aug 7: > > > > > > It seems that the AUTO_EOI_* options might speed interupt handling. > > > I've tried them on some motherboards, and they seem to work ok. Are these > > > options recommended? I've seen some talk that these options should be > > > eliminated? > > > > well... don't make AUTO_EOI_2 enabled by default... I have a motherboard > > that dies when this option is enabled... though I haven't found one yet > > when AUTO_EOI_1 is enabled... the comments say that AUTO_EOI_1 will > > break suspend/resume on some notebooks... so it looks like we can't > > enable both by default... > > Every motherboard I've tried it on works fine, even an old EISA 486 > motherboard, but all the boards I tested were made by ASUS... It doesn't work on a few of my older Pentium MBs, but seems to work on anything based on the HX/VX chipsets (or newer from Intel) and maybe the FX (not sure, I thought I had problems with it).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970808071848.28316A-100000>