From owner-freebsd-mobile Fri Jan 22 11:36:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA29275 for freebsd-mobile-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:36:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29225 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:36:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00927; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:30:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901221930.LAA00927@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Nate Williams cc: "Gary T. Corcoran" , mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reclaiming irqs for unsupported PCI hardware? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:39:42 MST." <199901221739.KAA21533@mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:30:31 -0800 From: Mike Smith 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. Uh, it's also possible for the removal itself to generate an interrupt - I had this 100% repeatable on the Sharp I used to use. > > 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.) The observation so far has been that Windows will lock up if you yank a card on a machine that uses polling. I'm thinking now that we'd be better off taking the hard line - the card must be shut off in software before removing. > > 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. That's it in a nutshell. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message