From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 5 15:40:58 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 ECD3616A4CE; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:40:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBAF43D39; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:40:06 -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) i05NdxN1072054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:40:03 +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 i05NdhMO027511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:39:44 +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 i05NdhBE039809; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:39:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i05NdgPp039808; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:39:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:39:42 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20040105233941.GB39786@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20040105231533.GQ17023@cicely12.cicely.de> <20040105.162427.30502300.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040105233138.GR17023@cicely12.cicely.de> <20040105.163345.129782176.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040105.163345.129782176.imp@bsdimp.com> 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: ticso@cicely12.cicely.de cc: ticso@cicely.de cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org 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 23:40:59 -0000 On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:33:45PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20040105233138.GR17023@cicely12.cicely.de> > Bernd Walter writes: > : On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:24:27PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <20040105231533.GQ17023@cicely12.cicely.de> > : > Bernd Walter writes: > : > : The point is that it shouldn't take an IRQ for PCI which is configured > : > : for an ISA device in device.hints. > : > > : > We don't do that. > : > : We do! > : > : /boot/device.hints: > : hint.sio.0.irq="4" > : > : pci_cfgintr_virgin: using routable interrupt 4 > : pci_cfgintr: 0:4 INTD routed to irq 4 > > Ah, I see what you are saying. That would be hard to implement. I already worried about this. The BIOS has an implied veto for IRQ4 because it know this onboard device and you could add veto IRQs for additional ISA components. This table has no influence on FreeBSD. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de