On 05-Jan-2004 Bernd Walter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:33:45PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> In message: <20040105233138.GR17023_at_cicely12.cicely.de> >> Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely12.cicely.de> writes: >> : On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:24:27PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> : > In message: <20040105231533.GQ17023_at_cicely12.cicely.de> >> : > Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely12.cicely.de> writes: >> : > : The point is that it shouldn't take an IRQ for PCI which is configured >> : > : for an ISA device in device.hints. >> : > >> : > We don't do that. >> : >> : We do! >> : >> : /boot/device.hints: >> : hint.sio.0.irq="4" >> : >> : pci_cfgintr_virgin: using routable interrupt 4 >> : pci_cfgintr: 0:4 INTD routed to irq 4 >> >> Ah, I see what you are saying. That would be hard to implement. > > I already worried about this. > The BIOS has an implied veto for IRQ4 because it know this onboard > device and you could add veto IRQs for additional ISA components. > This table has no influence on FreeBSD. See, the BIOS is supposed to communicate that via $PIR. If it leaves IRQ 4 in $PIR, then it's broken. We can't read the BIOS's mind per se. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 06:20:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC