From owner-freebsd-mobile Fri Jan 22 09:40:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12265 for freebsd-mobile-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA12172 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:39:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA10172; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:39:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21533; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:39:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:39:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199901221739.KAA21533@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Gary T. Corcoran" Cc: mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reclaiming irqs for unsupported PCI hardware? In-Reply-To: <36A80B3F.80FA5E87@home.com> References: <199901220158.RAA12743@dingo.cdrom.com> <36A80B3F.80FA5E87@home.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Perhaps we're just looking at this the wrong way? We don't try to > > detect when floppies are stupidly removed, perhaps we shouldn't try to > > do it with pccard/cardbus cards either? > > > > Commentary? Are we trying too hard to do something that's not worth > > the effort? > > After following this thread, I've come to the conclusion that since > the PCIC hardware _is not designed_ to allow arbitrary card removal > (e.g. it doesn't auto-shutoff the IRQ line) Sure it does. IRQ's are no longer generated on that piece of hardware, but it's possible that the IRQ routine was in the middle of processing the previous (valid) IRQ that was generated 'just prior' to the removal. > we're trying to come up > with, at best, a workaround, for something that the user _just shouldn't > do_. What users shouldn't do and what they actually do are too different things. 'But it works in Linux/Win95' is the response you'll get when you explain to them why they shouldn't yank their 'active' cards. (Although, as I understand it, Win98 no longer allows this and locks up the computer, unlike Win95. *Most* cards can be yanked under '95, but some can't.) > In other words, just make sure mobile users know they _must_ > shutdown a card before removing it, and forget about trying to handle > stupid (or accidental) user actions. The use of the IRQ makes it less painful *IF* the user yanks their card. Is it worth making it easier? I don't know. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message