From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 2 10:32:01 2004 Return-Path: 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 1AC5F16A4CE; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E7343D5E; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:31:56 -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 i02IVtOI012480; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:31:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:31:53 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20040102.113153.90116271.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20040102.093712.113734642.imp@bsdimp.com> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:32:01 -0000 In message: John Baldwin writes: : On 02-Jan-2004 M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: : > John Baldwin 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... : : It does it by not making it available in the first place. I'd have expected it to be more like: Interrupt request lines: ... 0x2 (atpic0) ... Warner