From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 2 22:07:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 CF40C16A4A0 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:07:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A25443D55 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:07:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (zion.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA2M7FQv015381; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:07:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:30:27 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611021230.27995.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.1]); Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:07:20 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/2151/Thu Nov 2 13:35:18 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: John Polstra Subject: Re: Silly IRQ allocation on Dell 1950 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:07:32 -0000 On Thursday 02 November 2006 11:03, John Polstra wrote: > I've been testing a Dell 1950 box with -current from late July. The > box has two integrated BCM5708 gigabit ethernet interfaces that work > with the bce driver. I noticed that both bce0 and bce1 are assigned > to IRQ 16. With two IOAPICs on board, it's hard to believe that Dell > would be so silly as to force the two gigabit interfaces to share an > IRQ. Is this sharing really necessary, or is it caused by a bug or > limitation in the OS? The verbose dmesg output follows below. It's in the hardware. Both your bce devices are on pci4 and pci8 both of which route their interrupts up through their bridges onto pci3, and Dell mapped both of those to IRQ 16. > pci8: on pcib4 > pcib3: matched entry for 7.0.INTA > pcib3: slot 0 INTA hardwired to IRQ 16 > pcib4: slot 0 INTA is routed to irq 16 > bce0: mem 0xf4000000-0xf5ffffff irq 16 at > device 0.0 on pci8 > pci4: on pcib14 > pcib13: matched entry for 3.0.INTA > pcib13: slot 0 INTA hardwired to IRQ 16 > pcib14: slot 0 INTA is routed to irq 16 > bce1: mem 0xf8000000-0xf9ffffff irq 16 at > device 0.0 on pci4 -- John Baldwin