Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:59:57 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Kenneth W Cochran <kwc@world.std.com> Cc: John Reynolds~ <jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: breakage with two ed network devices Message-ID: <200010061659.KAA09492@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:18:28 EDT." <200010061618.MAA07034@world.std.com> References: <200010061618.MAA07034@world.std.com> <14812.58143.609625.133015@hip186.ch.intel.com> <A0E035400B00D4118F9E0008C70D4D77A88A@ITC1> <200010051637.KAA51557@harmony.village.org> <200010060408.WAA05189@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200010061618.MAA07034@world.std.com> Kenneth W Cochran writes: : >How could ATA commits screw up the probing of ed0? : >[...] : : ed0 living on an IRQ that is "reserved" (somehow) for one : of the ATA "channels?" (ie. 14 and/or 15?) They aren't reserved. : >Given THAT information does anybody have any further clues? : >Again, this machine is an Abit BP6, two Linksys Ether16 ISA : >NICs. Kernel config for them is: : > : > device ed0 at isa? port 0x2c0 irq 15 iomem 0xd8000 : : Can this card (ed0) go to a different IRQ? Is that IRQ : disabled/reassigned (from PCI) in the BIOS/setup? Maybe that's where we should look. Does the ata probe for the slave somehow fail to release irq 15? The hardware config is fine (I've been over it in private email sevearl times). : > device ed1 at isa? port 0x340 irq 9 iomem 0xd8000 : : I might want to "move" this one, too; IRQ 9 is the "shared" : one & it has always "frightened" me some... :) IRQ 9 is fine. Nothing wrong with it. It isn't shared at all. It used to be irq 2, but that's now used for chaining. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010061659.KAA09492>