Alan Cox wrote:
>
> IRQ 5 may well have gone to an onboard device.
>
> There are two things to note here:
>
> 1. By default if you boot with non PnP OS the BIOS will assign IRQ's
> to PnP devices and we would be best to try and keep the existing value when
> possible (so the PCI/ISA routin
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The irq is still there, it's just that it's mapped somewhere else. The MP
> table should give the mapping.
>
> Please find the "mptable" program, and run it. If you don't already have
> it on your system, search for it on google or something.. It will print
> out your w
[ Left all the quotes intact, because I would like Ingo to give this a
quick look. Sorry about the noise.. ]
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
>
> Legacy would be just fine, but ISAPNP is attempting to assign an IRQ that is
> unavailable on my system. In otherwords, the BIOS has ass
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
> >
> > Is this patch acceptable?
>
> Please explain.
>
> The test seems to be that "if there are IO_APICs, a PnP irq _has_ to be an
> IO_APIC irq".
>
> > + if (!IO_APIC_IRQ(irq) && io_apic_irqs)
> > + ret
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
>
> Is this patch acceptable?
Please explain.
The test seems to be that "if there are IO_APICs, a PnP irq _has_ to be an
IO_APIC irq".
> + if (!IO_APIC_IRQ(irq) && io_apic_irqs)
> + return 1;
Which makes no sense to me. Why woul
Linus,
Is this patch acceptable?
info & patch below.
Martin
>>Jaroslav
>>
>>Basically, this patch discards any unusable IO_APIC IRQs from the list of IRQs
>>that ISA PNP is trying to allocate from - but only if IO_APIC IRQs are av
6 matches
Mail list logo
