From owner-freebsd-mobile  Tue Nov  4 07:40:17 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-mobile>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA17303
          for mobile-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:40:17 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile)
Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (SRI-56K-FR.mt.net [206.127.65.42])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA17293
          for <freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:40:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
	by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA25861;
	Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:39:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA13793; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:39:55 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:39:55 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199711041539.IAA13793@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Libretto 50 - US Version and PAO 
In-Reply-To: <199711040708.RAA01681@word.smith.net.au>
References: <199711040703.AAA03199@harmony.village.org>
	<199711040708.RAA01681@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > : Just following on a discussion with Nate about the whole IRQ-in-CIS 
> > : thing; can you throw the 'pccard dumpcis' output for your '589 this 
> > : way, as well as the configuration index that you're currently using?
> > 
> > Further experimentation has shown that the irq makes no difference at
> > all.  What really did matter was the i/o range.  The range 0x240-0x2e0
> > was what caused the problems.  After removing that range of addresses
> > and adding irqs, I was able to bring up the card on irq 10, 11 and 15.
> 
> Gotcha.  Want to bet there's something at 0x240?
> 
> Nate; you're the last source of "the IRQ matters" evidence - can we 
> reevaluate this when you're free to test your set?

Yep, it appears that I'm confused badly, and there may be something else
on my box that is causing things to fail when I don't specificy the IRQ.
But, it looks like I'm going to have to eat my words about requiring the
IRQ to be the same as the CIS port.

On that note, does it mean that any of the other information used in the
CIS tuples (besides the size) is relevant?  Couldn't we just determine
the io size and map it anywhere then?  It would *sure* be nice if we
could simplify the CIS tuple processing. :) ;)


Nate