Re: [Xenomai-help] Xenomai on i7-870

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

On 06/17/2011 09:52 PM, Jakub Nowacki wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/06/2011 20:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 09:00 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 06/17/2011 04:05 PM, Jakub Nowacki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've added my ID to the table in smi.c file as:
>>>>
>>>> {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,
>>>> PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_5_3400_SERIES_LPC_MIN+0xa)}
>>>>
>>>> Everything complies OK but during the startup I get message:
>>>>
>>>> [    2.137733] Xenomai: SMI-enabled chipset found
>>>> [    2.137744] Xenomai: SMI workaround failed!
>>>>
>>>> Should I do something extra apart from adding it to the table?
>>>
>>> There are two reasons why it may not work:
>>> - the way to globally disable SMIs has changed with the chipset version
>>> you are using;
>>> - the BIOS of your PC locks the SMI disabling bit.
>>>
>>> So, the next step is to check the chipset datasheet.
>>
>>  From your first mail, the chipset you use is a Q57, the datasheet says
>> that the GLB_SMI_EN is still there. So, what you should do is check
>> whether the SMI_LOCK bit is set. The following (untested) patch should
>> print the lock bit value:
>>
>> diff --git a/ksrc/arch/x86/smi.c b/ksrc/arch/x86/smi.c
>> index d80b14b..97e6774 100644
>> --- a/ksrc/arch/x86/smi.c
>> +++ b/ksrc/arch/x86/smi.c
>> @@ -157,7 +157,8 @@ void rthal_smi_disable(void)
>>          mask_bits(rthal_smi_masked_bits, rthal_smi_en_addr);
>>
>>          if (inl(rthal_smi_en_addr)&  rthal_smi_masked_bits)
>> -               printk("Xenomai: SMI workaround failed!\n");
>> +               printk("Xenomai: SMI workaround failed!, BIOS lock: d\n",
>> +                      !!(inl(rthal_smi_en_addr + 0xA0 - SMI_CTRL_ADDR)&  (1<<  4)));
>>          else
>>                  printk("Xenomai: SMI workaround enabled\n");
>>
> 
> You were faster. Thanks! Sorry for slight cross posting. I have this 
> machine at work so I probably test it on Monday.

The next step is to try disabling the individual bits (TC0, USB legacy,
etc...), as they may not affected by the SMI_LOCK bit.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.