Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 19:51:15 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, des@flood.ping.uio.no, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: future of syscons Message-ID: <199812240351.TAA00736@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Dec 1998 12:44:26 %2B0900." <199812240344.MAA22380@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > msmith>> controller kbdc0 at isa? port IO_KBD tty > msmith>> device atkbd0 at isa? tty flags xxxx > msmith>> device psm0 at isa? tty flags yyy > msmith> > msmith>Just to note that ultimately you won't specify the 'tty' mask here, but > msmith>rather in the interrupt connection function, so: > msmith> > msmith>controller atkbdc0 at isa? port IO_KBD > msmith>device atkbd0 at kbdc? > msmith>device psm0 at kbdc? ... > msmith>Also, since the atkbd and psm device interrupt handlers can only be > msmith>called from the atkbdc driver, they don't register interrupts and thus > msmith>don't have/need masks. > > There is a compromise here too. In i386, if atkbdc wants to have TWO > interrupt handlers, it has to call register_intr() directly (and make > sure that there won't be conflicts), rather than letting > isa_configure() to do the deed, because isa_configure() can assign > only one interrupt to a device. Am I wrong? No, you're right. But there's nothing stopping you have atkbdc do that right now; it should never take an interrupt from it's configuration - if it detects a kbdc, it should always take both implicitly. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812240351.TAA00736>