Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:39:28 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Libretto 50 - US Version and PAO Message-ID: <199711050309.NAA00694@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:39:55 PDT." <199711041539.IAA13793@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. I wouldn't put it that way; just that we're having to learn some real truths about the hardware here. > 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. :) ;) Well, from my reading of things, yes; I can't actually see anything that the card itself could actually be using to determine where it's actually mapped. It sounds like the configuration entries are basically junk there for the convenience of lazy DOS driver authors. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711050309.NAA00694>