On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:41:35PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:15:49PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:46:57PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:09:29PM +0000, Patrick Welche wrote:
> > > > Would it be safe to simply switch on acpi in INSTALL?
> > > 
> > > The main problem is that there are some brocken ACPI implementations out
> > > there (and still some bugs left in our ACPI code I guess). So we really need
> > > both ...
> > 
> > Would "disable acpi" in userconf work?
> 
> Hum, maybe. I'll investigate that.

OK; I've built a release with the attached diff and tested on 3 different
systems:
- recent P4 HT: no problems using ACPI+ioapic, and both can be disabled
  with boot -c; we get the same dmesg as INSTALL kernel without the patch
- older P2 system: the kernel finds ACPI but no IOAPIC; the device uses
  legacy interrupts and are functionnal.
- a system without ACPI (a Xen HVM guest actually): the kernel prints some
  messages about not being able to find ACPI and them boots in legacy
  mode. No problems either.

So it looks like adding ACPI+ioapic to INSTALL is workable: on recent systems
is should work, on non-acpi one it works; and on sytems where ACPI is broken
is should be possible to disable it with boot -c.
The only problem is that with my patch bootfloppy-big overflows again :(

Comments ? Any objection to this change (once a solution for bootfloppy-big
is in place) ?

-- 
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--