From owner-freebsd-multimedia Sun Feb 23 18:25:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA19050 for multimedia-outgoing; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from whqvax.picker.com (whqvax.picker.com [144.54.1.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19018 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ct.picker.com by whqvax.picker.com with SMTP; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from elmer.ct.picker.com ([144.54.57.34]) by ct.picker.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04416; Sun, 23 Feb 97 21:23:22 EST Received: by elmer.ct.picker.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA00546; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:21:07 -0500 Message-Id: <19970223212107.37259@ct.picker.com> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:21:07 -0500 From: Randall Hopper To: Amancio Hasty Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New BT848 driver 0.2 References: <19970222164418.44306@ct.picker.com> <199702222206.OAA09711@rah.star-gate.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61 In-Reply-To: <199702222206.OAA09711@rah.star-gate.com>; from Amancio Hasty on Feb 02, 1997 at 02:06:46PM Sender: owner-multimedia@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Amancio Hasty: |A cursory analysis of the interrupt status info that you send us seems to |indicate that you are getting excessive PCI errors. ... |Here is a sample output from my P100: |Feb 22 05:51:20 cioloco /kernel: STATUS 0 d000206 30701c |Feb 22 05:51:20 cioloco /kernel: STATUS 0 d000a04 3077a4 |Feb 22 05:51:20 cioloco /kernel: STATUS 0 d000a04 3077a4 |Feb 22 05:51:20 cioloco /kernel: STATUS 0 c000206 30601c |Feb 22 05:51:20 cioloco /kernel: STATUS 0 c000206 30601c ... | ^^^^^^^ BKTR_INT_STAT |BKTR_INT_STAT is the second value in the output as you can see |bit 15 is never set which means that the Bt848 is not having |problems accessing the host memory. A piece of my output: STATUS 0 dc000206 100001c STATUS 0 dc000a04 1000f24 STATUS 0 dd000206 2b901c STATUS 0 dd000a04 2b9f24 Bit 15? Are some bytes swapped in the port mapping? It looks to my like your low-order word (bits 15->0) is the same as mine. The differences look like your bits 28,30, and 31 which are in the RISCS field. I guess I might be missing something. Randall