Still IRQ routing problems with bridged devices.

[ticso at cicely12.cicely.de (Bernd Walter)]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 10:12:23AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20040101155100_(_dot_)_GF11668_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de>
>             Bernd Walter <ticso_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de> writes:
> : On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 10:22:30PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <20040101013224_(_dot_)_GC11668_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de>
> : >             Bernd Walter <ticso_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de> writes:
> : > : The board is an old Asus T2P4 with 3 bridged cards and $PIR table.
> : > : All IRQs behind bridges get bogusly IRQ4 instead of the right ones.
> : > : Is this only a problem on some boards or do we have a general irq
> : > : routing problem with bridges?
> : > 
> : > It is a problem with some bridges and PCI BIOS interrupt routing.
> : 
> : The intline registers are correct - that's what used to run since years.
> : What has the kind of bridge to do with it?
> 
> just what the code does :-)

But bridges are handled generic so why would only some bridges show
this problem?
The bridges are 21050 types btw.

> : > : At least I know that bridge irq routing works fine on alpha.
> : > : $PIR table claims to only have 7 entries - does this make sense for
> : > : a 4 slot board?
> : > 
> : > Maybe you could post it.  It makes sense if you have on-board PCI
> : > devices.
> : 
> : Is it shown with a boot -v or how can I get it?
> : The board has 4 slots and the usual bunch of southbridge devices.
> 
> boot -v with and without your patch.

Easier said then done.
irq4 is sio0 - I remember there were problems with serial console from
the last time.
And it doesn't boot into multi user without the devices behind the
bridges - all scsi controllers :)
Will see what happens.

> : What do you mean with "when we were re-routing all the time"?
> : If I don't get it wrong we are re-routing all the time and
> : take the result if it's a valid int.
> 
> s/were/weren't/ and it will make sense.  We used to not route all the
> time, and now we do.

Yes it did work - BIOS initilised intlines values are valid so the
system stayed with them.

-- 
B.Walter                   BWCT                http://www.bwct.de
ticso_(_at_)_bwct_(_dot_)_de                                  info_(_at_)_bwct_(_dot_)_de