Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:21:59 +0900 (JST) From: Takayoshi Kochi <kochi@netbsd.org> To: len.brown@intel.com Cc: kanaoka@netbsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI SCI flags Message-ID: <20040427.012159.74740435.kochi@netbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <29AC424F54821A4FB5D7CBE081922E402FE8C6@hdsmsx403.hd.intel.com> References: <29AC424F54821A4FB5D7CBE081922E402FE8C6@hdsmsx403.hd.intel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, From: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com> Subject: RE: ACPI SCI flags Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:44:56 -0400 > >> > PIC mode: > >> > force level/low via ELCR always. > >> > >> Did you find that made a difference on some systems? If so, > >which ones? > >> The opinion here was that ELCR is probably EISA-only. > > > >Kanaoka-san reported that if SCI is not set level-trigger, > >the SCI doesn't work properly on his laptop. > >It (Libretto L3) has ALi chipsets (1543 south bridge). > > > >When I tested on my laptop (ThinkPad X31, Intel ICH4), > >it seemed that the setting of ELCR didn't make any difference, though. > > You mean it doesn't work in either case? > Testing it via power button? It DID work in both cases. > Months ago when Linux did the PIC-mode level/low thing, I had > A bunch of users test it, and for many the hardware worked > correctly no matter if ELCR was set to level or edge. > > However, there were others which did care, and only worked > if level triggered. Most of these had a BIOS that had already > set the ELCR to level, but some required the OS to do it. Thanks for the long explanation. I agree that setting ELCR makes sense. --- Takayoshi Kochi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040427.012159.74740435.kochi>