On Monday, 7 of July 2008, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > It makes absolutely no sense and should be harmful to call > > > clear_IO_APIC_pin(apic1, pin1) here, because both apic1 and pin1 should be > > > equal to -1 here. If it has to be called, then I suppose the DMI matching > > > did not work and the workaround has not been enabled. > > > > Do you realize that the clear_IO_APIC_pin(apic1, pin1) thing is _only_ called > > _IF_ the DMI matching did work? > > Well, it is the very intent of the DMI quirk to set apic1 and pin1 both > to -1, as a result of IRQ0 being absent from our I/O APIC interrupt > routing table. Therefore if the quirk did indeed work, a call to > clear_IO_APIC_pin() is useless and likely harmful as its callees don't do > range checking (my understanding of code is it results in random poking at > the local APIC through the FIX_APIC_BASE fixmap). There should be nothing > to clear too, as interrupt redirection entries for all the I/O APIC inputs > are cleared (the mask is set to 1 and the remaining fields zeroed) when > clear_IO_APIC() is called from enable_IO_APIC() upon initialization and > all the unused ones (not referred to from anywhere in the interrupt > routing table) are never touched afterwards. Sorry, the patch I posted was _instead_ of your previous patch with the quirk, because that patch didn't work. I don't know why it didn't work, however, I can only say it didn't work after removing the __i386__ dependency of acpi_dmi_table[]. My patch is on top of the linux-next tree that didn't contain your patch. So, my patch adds a quirk that sets disable_irq0_through_ioapic to 1 (this variable is defined differently in my patch) and uses it to skip the part of check_timer() that breaks my box. I hope that makes things clear. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
