Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:25 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: louie@TransSys.COM (Louis A. Mamakos) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, imp@rover.village.org, sef@kithrup.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I am contemplating the following change... Message-ID: <199707231807.LAA15921@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199707230244.WAA24038@whizzo.TransSys.COM> from "Louis A. Mamakos" at Jul 22, 97 10:44:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Specifically: > > > > o Not all cards will be on different interrupts > > The ones on an ISA bus ought to be. Certainly I understand how > PCI cards share interrupts. On the other hand, the current PCI > seem to discover the interrupts used already. I was referring to the fact that there is no hardware-based keying that kept the IRQ's from being set the same on cards. Or memory address ranges. Basically, it's a pain in the ass. > Ok, not a 100% solution. > > I was just suggesting that an approach whereby all the ISA interrupts > are preset during autoconfig time to a routine which could note if it > was invoked as a result of a driver's probe activity. Yes, having one > driver poke an unrelated card during probe is a problem, but this > situation really isn't any different than the UNIBUS situation. There's > at least the possibility of a sanity check. Yeah; this is at least moderately useful; it would make the LANCE probes less ambiguous, at least (LANCE chips must be made to squawk to detect them). I'm sure there is some other hardware it might help as well. It's just nowhere near the Unibus soloution; it's unfortunate. 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707231807.LAA15921>