From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 5 15:16:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9FB16A4CE; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E5E43D31; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:16:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i05NFrN1071768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i05NFaMO027317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:36 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i05NFZBE039689; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i05NFZcH039688; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:15:34 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20040105231533.GQ17023@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20040102224015.GI17023@cicely12.cicely.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de cc: Bernd Walter cc: current@FreeBSD.org cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: Still IRQ routing problems with bridged devices. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:16:09 -0000 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.de