Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:43:31 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: msch@snafu.de Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IRQ-Routing for 5.3-BETA Message-ID: <4155AE43.5010704@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200409251822.11019.msch@snafu.de> References: <200409232235.08683.msch@snafu.de> <200409241514.53704.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200409251643.19401.msch@snafu.de> <200409251822.11019.msch@snafu.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Schuendehuette wrote: > On Saturday 25 September 2004 16:43, Matthias Schuendehuette wrote: > >>Hi John, >> >>On Friday 24 September 2004 21:14, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>Umm the list of IRQ numbers is the list of valid IRQs. Your BIOS >>>is _ineded_ buggy. Note that for the IRQ in question it says this: >>> >>> >>>\_SB_.PCI0.LNKA irq 9: [ 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 14 15] >>>low,level,sharable 0.1.0 >>> >>>I.e., I'm using IRQ 9, but 9 is not in the list of valid IRQs which >>>includes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. Thus, the >>>kernel believes what your broken BIOS says and throws out IRQ 9 and >>>tries to use IRQ 10 instead, which your BIOS claims is open for use >>>even though you've told it its not. One thing you can try is a >>>patch Nate has to always treat ACPI's interrupt (IRQ 9 usually) as >>>a valid interrupt for the link device to use. I've committed that patch to -current. If it doesn't break anything, I'll MFC it. I'm pretty sure it's ok to special-case the SCI but with the track record of BIOS authors, there's probably a system that asks for it but can't handle it. You should test the -current version of acpi_pci_link.c and see if it works on your system both before and after reconfiguring your device's irq. >>Umm... this seems to be completely logic. >> >>I reconfigured my ISDN-Card to use IRQ2/9 (which was more simple than >>I remembered :-) and it works! Shame on me, sometimes it's really too >>simple... > > This really works for FreeBSD 5.3-BETA5 of today, but it works *only* > with IRQ 2/9. I don't quite understand. Your device's hardware was not set to 9 but the BIOS was claiming it was? Is it on the motherboard (i.e., non-removable)? > I also tried IRQ 5, which is not used by any other device (a least I > couldn't find any notice about irq5 in the boot -v messages but for > isic0), and this does not work with the same messages as with IRQ 10. > > Somehow I have the uncertain feeling that the new IRQ-Routing code has > still some deficencies, at least for ISA-style IRQs... > > But it's no longer a severe problem for me, so I can follow RELENG_5 > again. When the BIOS gives an initial irq, we always try to route to that one first since some devices don't work at any other irq. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4155AE43.5010704>