From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  2 08:37:32 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6AB2D16A4CE; Fri,  2 Jan 2004 08:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CE25743D31; Fri,  2 Jan 2004 08:37:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i02GbUOI011334;
	Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:37:30 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:37:12 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <20040102.093712.113734642.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: jhb@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References: <20040101.033444.103565788.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: rosti_bsd@yahoo.com
cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: IRQ 2 problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:37:32 -0000

In message: <XFMail.20040102113123.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
            John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > It looks like IRQ2 isn't registered as an interrupt source, so when we
: > create the resource map, it looks like we skip it and shouldn't be
: > handing it out...
: 
: Yes, it doesn't exist as a valid IRQ in the irq map anymore.  Oh, but you
: know what, the resource manager is really buggy in this respect.  For example,
: on my system here:
: 
: Interrupt request lines:
:     0x0 (root0)
:     0x1 (atkbd0)
:     0x2 (root0)
:     0x3 (sio1)
:     0x4 (sio0)
:     0x5-0x8 (root0)
:     0x9 (acpi0)
:     0xa-0xb (root0)
:     0xc (psm0)
:     0xd (npx0)
:     0xe (ata0)
:     0xf (ata1)
:     0x10 (uhci0)
:     0x11 (sis0)
:     0x12 (uhci2)
:     0x13 (uhci1)
:     0x14 (fxp0)
:     0x15-0x17 (root0)
: 
: Note that the nexus didn't add IRQ 2 as a possible resource, but the
: resource manager went ahead and added it anyway when the adjacent
: regions were added.  Someone should fix the resource manager code
: perhaps.

Interesting.  Of course the default behavior for the devinfo stuff is
to say that root owns it, so I'm not 100% convinced that it is a bug
in the resource manager, necessarily...  It fails to report shared
resources correctly, but they are none-the-less allocated correctly.

I'm curious why the new PIC driver doesn't allocate IRQ 2 itself...

Warner