On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:29:40PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On 02-Jan-2004 Bernd Walter wrote: > > in use for a ISA device by an PnP On-Board component. > > Yes, our current algorithm for choosing which interrupt to use if we > don't see one set by the BIOS already is incredibly dumb, which is > what I said earlier. :) > > > And I don't see the point why this is not a problem for non bridged > > devices, which would also require an IRQ for 0.2.0 INTA. OK - now I got it. Nevertheless the current situation is a regression to previous behavour in such a case. The board works fine if interrupts are left untouched. The point is that it shouldn't take an IRQ for PCI which is configured for an ISA device in device.hints. I don't know the IRQ selection code and how hard it would be to fix. > If the BIOS has already set an IRQ, we use what the BIOS says. Mmm - this sentence makes be wonder. The BIOS has setup everything in a working condition. All 4 links are configured with IRQs by the BIOS. It seems that exectly this check failed. > If the BIOS has already set an IRQ for another device using the > same link, we use that same IRQ. The problem case is when the > BIOS has not set a device yet for another device with the same > link. Then the "dumb algorithm" kicks in. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso_at_bwct.de info_at_bwct.deReceived on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 14:16:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC