Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:40:52 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems with PCMCIA Cards Message-ID: <200001190740.AAA23887@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:29:19 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001190225080.462-100000@sasami.jurai.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001190225080.462-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001190225080.462-100000@sasami.jurai.net> "Matthew N. Dodd" writes: : Otherwise your timeout solution seems good. Are the valid IRQs dependent : on the board integrator or on the chip used? Since we can identify the : chips (well, it looks like we can) couldn't we maintain a 'quirk' table? That I'm not sure of. Given the high cost of notebook machines, I have to rely on information given to be second and third hand. It has taken me a long time to understand it all, and I'm sure that there are still areas that just don't sound right are are slightly wrong. I'm not sure that a quirk table would be needed if we can find an ultra reliable way to assign the IRQs (or reassign them). And there is no way to force an interrupt, that I've found, on the i82365 chip. However, I have as a task to read the datasheets and see if I can find a better way than my timeout method. The datasheets are either long and hard to penetrate, or short in that they say they are compatible with the parts described in the long datasheets :-). The closest I've found is to apply power to the socket. I'll have to read more closely and do some experiments. I'd love to find a good solution to this problem. I'm glad your flame caught me at a time when my brain was up for trying to solve this silly problem. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001190740.AAA23887>