Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:21:29 -0400 From: "Steve Sims" <SimsS@Infi.Net> To: "Bruce Evans" <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problem with sio0 Message-ID: <199609161721.NAA32022@mh004.infi.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've stuffed a couple of diagnostic printf's into sio.c and have = empirically proven that the probe on a Compaq LTE/Elite returns 1's in = failures[5] and failures[8]. That is to say, with isa_irq_pending. A couple more minutes under the microscope shows that the sio0 probe is = being called with IRQ=3D0x10, even though the kernel's configed as IRQ4 = (and verified by a boot -c. FWIW: the sio1 probe is called with IRQ = 0x08. Shooting in the dark, I guessed that maybe the plug 'n' pray code might = have stuffed up the works, as sio0 is on the logic board and sio1 is on = a Megahurts X-Jack. I rebuilt the kernel without any PCCARD, APM, = whatever. That didn't change anything. So.... Not knowing ANYTHING, I offer the following question: how / = where does the *dev structure get filled in before being passed into = sioprobe()? It appears that that's where the failure starts, but I'm in = *way* over my head.... Bruce, thanks for the help thus far. ...sjs... ---------- > From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> > To: bde@zeta.org.au; SimsS@Infi.Net > Subject: Re: Problem with sio0 > Date: Wednesday, September 11, 1996 4:33 PM >=20 > >Sorry, Bruce, no joy with the sio.c patches on my Compaq LTE/Elite = 4/75. > >... > >Where do I start to get this one hammered out? >=20 > What happens when you disable the tests in the probe? Some of the = tests > are too fussy. >=20 > Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609161721.NAA32022>