Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 15:10:56 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problems after PAO -> 2.2.5 stable Message-ID: <199711030440.PAA01498@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Nov 1997 21:22:28 PDT." <199711030422.VAA05299@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Tuple #6, code = 0x1b (Configuration entry), length = 7 > > 000: 21 08 aa 60 f8 02 07 > > Config index = 0x21 > > Card decodes 10 address lines, 8 Bit I/O only > > I/O address # 1: block start = 0x2f8 block length = 0x8 > > You left out the part of the 'supported IRQs' or whatever it says. Ah. No, I didn't - there isn't one. Does this mean that pccardd will prefer the IRQ from the CIS tuple over that from the pccard.conf file? > > This *works*. To me, it is clear that the IRQ parameter from the > > pccard.conf entry is being propagated to the sio probe/attach. > > Yes, but in the CIS tuple, some cards claim to support only some > interrupts, so if you use a different interrupt for that index then they > don't work. Which component "doesn't work"? The card has no idea which IRQ it's triggering, and AFAIK the pcic doesn't interpret the CIS, nor does the kernel, so I can't see anything other than pccardd that's at fault here... mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711030440.PAA01498>