Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:21:23 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, "Gary T. Corcoran" <garycor@home.com>, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reclaiming irqs for unsupported PCI hardware? Message-ID: <5072.917040083@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:50:15 MST." <199901221950.MAA22394@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199901221950.MAA22394@mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: >> > > > 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. >> > >> > Right, but this does not work reliably on all PCIC controllers. It >> > works on mine, but I know a number of controllers it does not work on >> > (for whatever reason). >> >> Sorry, you're missing my point - the removal causes a *card* interrupt, >> not a PCIC interrupt. > >Ah, gotcha. FWIW, supposedly the PCIC interrupt supercedes the card >interrupt in the current code. :) Yes, but that doesn't help you if the current context is a section of code with interrupts masked/disabled... Anyway, I belive that the "->gone" hack in sio.c is probably as far as it pays to go down this path anyway. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5072.917040083>