Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:23:45 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Blaz Zupan <blaz@amis.net> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pccard not working on 4.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <200003151923.MAA88694@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:16:12 %2B0100." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003152012460.9519-100000@titanic.medinet.si> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003152012460.9519-100000@titanic.medinet.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003152012460.9519-100000@titanic.medinet.si> Blaz Zupan writes: : > : pcic0: <Vadem 469> at port 0x3e0 iomem 0xd0000 on isa0 : > This is a slight lie. : > You might want to try this at 0x3e2. It is worth a shot. : : Bingo, it works! Now I'm wondering, GENERIC says: : : device pcic0 at isa? irq 10 port 0x3e0 iomem 0xd0000 : device pcic1 at isa? irq 11 port 0x3e2 iomem 0xd4000 disable : : Neither seems quite correct for my situation, where I use : : device pcic0 at isa? port 0x3e2 iomem 0xd0000 : : Is there a standard for this and are the above addresses just : backwards? I'll do another test with just : : device pcic0 at isa? : : as specified in LINT. The old code wouldn't even look at the second pcic entry. It will just blindly probe at both 3e0 and 3e2 and claim that it was really at 3e0. It would try to share interupts between these two entries and would generally not work at all on systems that had multiple pcic cards in them (I have about 6 different pcic isa cards that play better together now than before, but still not to the level I'd call working). I did have some code in place to try to search out the pcic devices, but it made it impossible to specify the management irq for those devices so I've never committed it. Warner 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?200003151923.MAA88694>