Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:47:06 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 36551 for review Message-ID: <20030821164706.GA566@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030821104047.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200308210731.h7L7V0tt040658@repoman.freebsd.org> <XFMail.20030821104047.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:40:47AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > @@ -266,9 +266,18 @@ > > struct sapic *sa = ia64_sapics[i]; > > if (irq < sa->sa_base || irq > sa->sa_limit) > > continue; > > + /* > > + * KLUDGE: Not all interrupts higher or equal to 16 are > > + * active low and level sensitive. We don't know yet how > > + * to check for this, so we hardcode the 2 cases we have > > + * wrong explicitly. This kludge is specific to the HP > > + * rx2600... > > + */ > > Have you tried looking at any interrupt overrides in the MADT? > That is where the BIOS should tell you which interrupts above 15 > have ISA-like parameters. I think you said the same 8 or 9 months ago. I think I answered something like: there's no interrupt override, because those relate to overriding the legacy interrupts (0-15). It's still true. There's no interrupt override, because we're not overriding interrupts. I also said that I thought it would be related to the fact that the UARTs are on the acpi bus, to which you replied that ACPI is not a bus. I didn't disagree, but it's generally much easier to treat acpi as a bus in these cases. I think this too is still true. The interrupt trigger and polarity is non-standard because the UARTs are described by acpi. They are not pci devices. Yet we assume that any non-laegacy irq (ie any larger than 15) must be a pci interrupt. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anywhere in the ACPI spec that states that devices described by ACPI have edge sensitivity and are active high. It may be a mistake on HP's part. Or maybe we should not reprogram the iosapics and assume the firmware has done that... I can't recall what Linux does. I'm sure I checked. But I guess I didn't find anything. I'm not sure I looked very hard... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030821164706.GA566>