Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:39:55 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Libretto 50 - US Version and PAO Message-ID: <199711041539.IAA13793@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711040708.RAA01681@word.smith.net.au> References: <199711040703.AAA03199@harmony.village.org> <199711040708.RAA01681@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > : Just following on a discussion with Nate about the whole IRQ-in-CIS > > : thing; can you throw the 'pccard dumpcis' output for your '589 this > > : way, as well as the configuration index that you're currently using? > > > > Further experimentation has shown that the irq makes no difference at > > all. What really did matter was the i/o range. The range 0x240-0x2e0 > > was what caused the problems. After removing that range of addresses > > and adding irqs, I was able to bring up the card on irq 10, 11 and 15. > > Gotcha. Want to bet there's something at 0x240? > > Nate; you're the last source of "the IRQ matters" evidence - can we > reevaluate this when you're free to test your set? Yep, it appears that I'm confused badly, and there may be something else on my box that is causing things to fail when I don't specificy the IRQ. But, it looks like I'm going to have to eat my words about requiring the IRQ to be the same as the CIS port. On that note, does it mean that any of the other information used in the CIS tuples (besides the size) is relevant? Couldn't we just determine the io size and map it anywhere then? It would *sure* be nice if we could simplify the CIS tuple processing. :) ;) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711041539.IAA13793>