Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Dec 1998 15:44:42 +0100 (MET) | From | Gerard Roudier <> | Subject | Re: /proc/pci -- /proc/bus/pci discrepancy |
| |
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Martin Mares wrote:
> Hello, > > > Bus 0, device 19, function 0: > > Multimedia audio controller: Ensoniq Unknown device (rev 4). > > Vendor id=1274. Device id=1371. > > Slow devsel. IRQ 13. Master Capable. Latency=64. Min Gnt=12.Max Lat=128. > > I/O at 0xef00 [0xef01]. > > > > 00:13.0 Multimedia audio controller: Ensoniq: Unknown device 1371 (rev 04) > > Subsystem: Unknown device 1274:1371 > > Control: I/O+ Mem- BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- > > Status: 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=slow >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- > > Latency: 12 min, 128 max, 64 set > > Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19 > > Region 0: I/O ports at ef00 > > > > You'll see that /proc/pci claims this sound card is device 19 and using > > IRQ 13, whereas /proc/bus/pci sees it as device 13 using IRQ 19. > > /proc/interrupts indicates that /proc/bus/pci is correct. > > 19 dec == 13 hex :-)
Hmmm ... I am not sure that a smiley was appropriate in your reply. AFAIR, until somebody, you hopefully know very well, changed the PCI code, IRQ numbers were correctly reported in _decimal_ by pci.c.
You should fix immediately oldproc.c rather than smiling at the face of 17% of the OS market that probably expects 2.2 kernels to provide compatibibility with applications based on 2.0 kernels, IMO. :-))
Happy New Year!
Regards, Gerard.
- 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/
| |