Still IRQ routing problems with bridged devices.

[jhb at FreeBSD.org (John Baldwin)]

On 05-Jan-2004 Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:33:45PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>> In message: <20040105233138_(_dot_)_GR17023_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de>
>>             Bernd Walter <ticso_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de> writes:
>> : On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 04:24:27PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>> : > In message: <20040105231533_(_dot_)_GQ17023_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de>
>> : >             Bernd Walter <ticso_(_at_)_cicely12_(_dot_)_cicely_(_dot_)_de> writes:
>> : > : The point is that it shouldn't take an IRQ for PCI which is configured
>> : > : for an ISA device in device.hints.
>> : > 
>> : > We don't do that.
>> : 
>> : We do!
>> : 
>> : /boot/device.hints:
>> : hint.sio.0.irq="4"
>> : 
>> : pci_cfgintr_virgin: using routable interrupt 4
>> : pci_cfgintr: 0:4 INTD routed to irq 4
>> 
>> Ah, I see what you are saying.  That would be hard to implement.
> 
> I already worried about this.
> The BIOS has an implied veto for IRQ4 because it know this onboard
> device and you could add veto IRQs for additional ISA components.
> This table has no influence on FreeBSD.

See, the BIOS is supposed to communicate that via $PIR.  If it leaves
IRQ 4 in $PIR, then it's broken.  We can't read the BIOS's mind per
se.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/