Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:45:43 -0500 (EST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: mpparse.c question |
| |
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > Can that happen, is that important? > > > > Silly question: Why can't we ignore all but the first pin? If we don't > > enable the additional pins, we don't have to disable them during > > disable_irq(). > > Possibly yes -- I haven't seen such a system.
it does exist, and the feature fixed a real bug. I dont remember which system exactly :-|
> > Btw, is is correct that the isa irq's are always connected to the first > > io apic? find_isa_irq_pin() doesn't handle that, and the caller just > > access io apic 0. > > It appears it happens so for all systems checked so far. The MPS does > not seem to enforce this configuration, so we might relax this > dependency for flexibility. Note that not only find_isa_irq_pin() > hardcodes this assumption -- setup_ExtINT_IRQ0_pin() does as well, for > example.
(hm, dont we have an assert in there to catch ISA IRQs bound to the second IO-APIC?) In any case, it would be a very surprising move if anyone added a second IO-APIC for the sake of *ISA* devices. This would be truly backwards.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |