From owner-freebsd-multimedia  Mon Mar 17 21:43:51 1997
Return-Path: <owner-multimedia>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA04355
          for multimedia-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04349
          for <multimedia@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA07396; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:43:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703180543.VAA07396@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>
cc: multimedia@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: latest bt848 code 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:24:43 EST."
             <199703180524.AAA01636@whizzo.transsys.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:43:43 -0800
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-multimedia@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I will look into why are you getting interrupts. You are not supposed
to get interrupts unless the driver failed to disabled interrupts.

Amancio

>From The Desk Of "Louis A. Mamakos" :
> > Hi
> > 
> > You are getting lots of errors on your data streams trying playing with
> > your bios for intance your PCI latency timer should be 32.
> 
> Hmmm.. I'll give that a try.
> 
> > Also Trying disabling shared IRQs
> 
> Well, this isn't gonna work.  There are not enough IRQs for this to
> work, and shared interrupts are a feature of PCI peripherals.  I really
> don't want to have to do this.
> 
> Shouldn't the driver check to see if the board is even enabled to generate
> interrupts before falling into the service routine?  How about checking
> the INT_MASK register at 0x104 to see if we've even enabled interrupts?
> I don't seem to see a simple interrupt asserted bit in any of the status
> registers, which is too bad.  I guess a mask of the appropriate bits in
> the interrupt status register would do it.
> 
> 
> louie
> 
>