On 01-Jan-2004 Bernd Walter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 10:12:23AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> In message: <20040101155100.GF11668_at_cicely12.cicely.de> >> Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely12.cicely.de> writes: >> : On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 10:22:30PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> : > In message: <20040101013224.GC11668_at_cicely12.cicely.de> >> : > Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely12.cicely.de> writes: >> : > : The board is an old Asus T2P4 with 3 bridged cards and $PIR table. >> : > : All IRQs behind bridges get bogusly IRQ4 instead of the right ones. >> : > : Is this only a problem on some boards or do we have a general irq >> : > : routing problem with bridges? >> : > >> : > It is a problem with some bridges and PCI BIOS interrupt routing. >> : >> : The intline registers are correct - that's what used to run since years. >> : What has the kind of bridge to do with it? >> >> just what the code does :-) > > But bridges are handled generic so why would only some bridges show > this problem? > The bridges are 21050 types btw. Sounds like a BIOS bug. If a bridge isn't listed in the $PIR, we use the barber-pole swizzle to route across it. However, that is technically only defined for bridges on add-in cards. The only way we can tell if a bridge is on an add-in card is if it is not listed either in ACPI's namespace with a _PRT or it is not listed in the $PIR. Part of teh problem is that we shouldn't be using IRQ4 when we route PCI devices if you have IRQ4 used for an ISA device anyway. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/Received on Fri Jan 02 2004 - 10:20:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC