On Thu, 18 May 2000, Martin Mares wrote:
>
> o PCI interrupt assignments are avoided if IO-APIC is really found,
> not if it's only configured.
This is still wrong, I bet.
This must an IO-APIC routing bug, not a PCI routing bug. The test that
disables the PCI router table when IO-APIC is enabled has always been
buggy, it's no good re-introducing it under a different guise.
If we find the PCI interrupt routing information in the MP tables, we will
use it, and the PCI router entry for that device gets ignored because
"dev->irq" will already be set. So the PCI router entry should not clash
with IO-APIC anyway.
If the MP-table doesn't have the routing, then the PCI router entry is
valid and interesting, so we don't want to ignore it.
At least this is my "obvious opinion". Which may be wrong. But I'd like to
know why this test was introduced, and why it isn't considered a problem
in the IO-APIC code but considered a PCI router problem..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST