Note that the PCIe spec mandates MSIs while old style interrults (LSIs) are optional... The result is that there are already platforms (though not x86 just yet) being design with simply no support for LSIs on PCIe and I've heard of devices doing that too (yeah, that's weird, they wouldn't work in windows I suppose).
When somebody can actually say what the huge advantages to MSI are that it's worth using when
(a) several motherboards are apparently known broken
(b) microsoft apparently is of the same opinion and _also_ doesn't use it
(c) the old non-MSI code works fine
(d) there is apparently no fool-proof way to tell when it works and when it doesn't.
then please holler. Btw, I'm not even _interested_ in any advantages unless you also have a solution for (d). Not a "it should work". I want to hear something that is _guaranteed_ to work.
Snake wrote:Sounds like some BIOS / MB combos, with Linux, don't get it quite right. I would assume that this is due to most PCI(e) card & chipset supplier, and BIOS manufacturers, working more on Windows problems than xNIX. It is possible, like the old Intel NIC NWAY 100BaseT autonegotiation flipbit error, that they "cover" up the problem by fixing it in the Windows drivers (but not in Linux, for example).
Snake wrote:I find it..."interesting"...that Linus claims MS does not use MSI, when Vista DOES prefer it:
As noted, apparently it was supported in XP but wasn't default. But I believe I HAVE seen some MSI PCI (I spend a lot of time debugging PCI card conflicts)
just brew it! wrote:I agree with Linus on this one. Enabling something by default that causes the system to break on a lot of hardware is dumb. I wonder if he changed his mind since that post, or got overruled, or perhaps it is something that only certain distros enable by default?
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests