Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:37:12 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IRQ 2 problem Message-ID: <20040102.093712.113734642.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040101.033444.103565788.imp@bsdimp.com> <XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > It looks like IRQ2 isn't registered as an interrupt source, so when we
: > create the resource map, it looks like we skip it and shouldn't be
: > handing it out...
:
: Yes, it doesn't exist as a valid IRQ in the irq map anymore. Oh, but you
: know what, the resource manager is really buggy in this respect. For example,
: on my system here:
:
: Interrupt request lines:
: 0x0 (root0)
: 0x1 (atkbd0)
: 0x2 (root0)
: 0x3 (sio1)
: 0x4 (sio0)
: 0x5-0x8 (root0)
: 0x9 (acpi0)
: 0xa-0xb (root0)
: 0xc (psm0)
: 0xd (npx0)
: 0xe (ata0)
: 0xf (ata1)
: 0x10 (uhci0)
: 0x11 (sis0)
: 0x12 (uhci2)
: 0x13 (uhci1)
: 0x14 (fxp0)
: 0x15-0x17 (root0)
:
: Note that the nexus didn't add IRQ 2 as a possible resource, but the
: resource manager went ahead and added it anyway when the adjacent
: regions were added. Someone should fix the resource manager code
: perhaps.
Interesting. Of course the default behavior for the devinfo stuff is
to say that root owns it, so I'm not 100% convinced that it is a bug
in the resource manager, necessarily... It fails to report shared
resources correctly, but they are none-the-less allocated correctly.
I'm curious why the new PIC driver doesn't allocate IRQ 2 itself...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040102.093712.113734642.imp>