Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:34 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: Still IRQ routing problems with bridged devices. Message-ID: <20040105231533.GQ17023@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040105172940.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040102224015.GI17023@cicely12.cicely.de> <XFMail.20040105172940.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:29:40PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On 02-Jan-2004 Bernd Walter wrote: > > in use for a ISA device by an PnP On-Board component. > > Yes, our current algorithm for choosing which interrupt to use if we > don't see one set by the BIOS already is incredibly dumb, which is > what I said earlier. :) > > > And I don't see the point why this is not a problem for non bridged > > devices, which would also require an IRQ for 0.2.0 INTA. OK - now I got it. Nevertheless the current situation is a regression to previous behavour in such a case. The board works fine if interrupts are left untouched. The point is that it shouldn't take an IRQ for PCI which is configured for an ISA device in device.hints. I don't know the IRQ selection code and how hard it would be to fix. > If the BIOS has already set an IRQ, we use what the BIOS says. Mmm - this sentence makes be wonder. The BIOS has setup everything in a working condition. All 4 links are configured with IRQs by the BIOS. It seems that exectly this check failed. > If the BIOS has already set an IRQ for another device using the > same link, we use that same IRQ. The problem case is when the > BIOS has not set a device yet for another device with the same > link. Then the "dumb algorithm" kicks in. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.dehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040105231533.GQ17023>