In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:36:54PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : I have a small tweak to the PCI code that re-routes PCI interrupts.
: > : Basically, it does two things, 1) make the comment less ia64-specific
: > : and 2) if the interrupt route returns an invalid IRQ (i.e. 255), then
: > : we don't change the intline. In other words, if we can't route the
: > : interrupt, we just assume that the firmware knows more than we do and
: > : go with the value it stuck in the register. 1) is a no-brainer, but
: > : I wonder what people think about 2). Patch below:
: >
: > I think #2 isn't so good. #1 is a no-brainer :-)
: >
: > : #if ...
: > ...
: > : + irq = PCIB_ROUTE_INTERRUPT(pcib, dev, cfg->intpin);
: > : + if (PCI_INTERRUPT_VALID(irq))
: > : + cfg->intline = irq;
: > : + else
: > : #endif
: > : + irq = cfg->intline;
: > : + resource_list_add(rl, SYS_RES_IRQ, 0, irq, irq, 1);
: > : }
: > : }
: >
: > The part I don't like is that if we can't route an interrupt, we
: > assume that the interrupt that was written there before is good and
: > routed. This strikes me as an unwise assumption. Also, we haven't
:
: Unless you find a reliable way to ask the BIOS how the board is wired,
: whatelse would you do than trust the inline register?
$PIR table does this for PCIBIOS. Other mechanisms do it for ACPI.
Pre PCIBIOS machines you are SOL.
Warner
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
