From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 05:27:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3315216A4BF for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.qubesoft.com (gate.qubesoft.com [217.169.36.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AD843FDF for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from bluebottle.qubesoft.com (bluebottle.qubesoft.com [192.168.1.2]) by mail.qubesoft.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7SCQxSO005043; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:26:59 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from builder02.qubesoft.com (builder02.qubesoft.com [192.168.1.8]) h7SCQpTj065158; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:26:59 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: John Hay In-Reply-To: <20030827054550.GA53143@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> References: <20030827054550.GA53143@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1062073611.26778.6.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 28 Aug 2003 13:26:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pnp code and irq 2 broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:27:07 -0000 On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:45, John Hay wrote: > Hi, > > Somewhere along the line the code in FreeBSD that maps irq 2 to irq 9 has > gone away and a panic was added if one tries to use irq 2. This is all > well and fine, except that the pnp code was not notified of this. :-) So > if you have a pnp device that have irq 2 in its mask and FreeBSD then > decides that irq 2 is a good irq to use for this device, you have an > instant panic. > > I have worked around it with this crude patch below. Crude because: > 1) I don't know if it should be an i386 only fix, and > 2) I used 0x04 directly, maybe IRQ_SLAVE from i386/isa/icu.h or > some other define should be used? > > Any comments from anyone? I think that the way this used to work was that irq 2 was never included in the irq resource map. The allocation code would never choose a configuration which used irq 2 because it should never be possible to allocate that resource.