Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:15:02 +0800 From: "Gallagher, James" <james.gallagher@misys.com> To: "'Marius Strobl'" <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: RE: hme problems Message-ID: <A99171D862A6D511A8F700B0D0D1307F02ED38C7@singex2.misys.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Gallagher, James Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 9:30 AM To: 'Marius Strobl' Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: RE: hme problems > > That's an old bug; the second NS16550 (used as mouse port) on > E250 erroneously gets the IRQ of the on-board HME assigned. > Later on this became fatal when uart(4) was enabled which > began trying to use that NS16550. The attached patch (applies > to HEAD and RELENG_6 but it should also be fine to just grab > uart_bus_ebus.c from HEAD, apply the patch and stick it into > a FreeBSD 5 system) should work around this by causing > uart(4) to not attach to the NS16550 in question in favour of > a working on-board HME. AFAICT the underlying problem is > caused by a IRQ routing problem due to interpreting the > information present in OFW wrong. This however can happen at > a couple of layers (the exact code path is also model > dependend) and I didn't manage to spot faulty code. Fixing it > would require me to have at least remote access to an E250 > which so far I didn't manage to get. Also currently I'm short > on spare time... > > Marius > > Thanks again for this, worked fine taking my machine up to 5.4-STABLE from 5.3. Cheers, James
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A99171D862A6D511A8F700B0D0D1307F02ED38C7>