That's odd. My understanding might be lacking.
I think the PIRQ table parser in 2.6.10 seems to work because it works when I use the normal BIOS. Therefore allowing the inference that 2.6.10 can read the table that was generated by the normal BIOS, right? What do you think? I'm now reading through the Alan Cox/Christer geode PIRQ discussion to see if I missed something.
--- "Ronald G. Minnich" rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, ramesh bios wrote:
I used Linux 2.6.10. I'm reading through the list archive now for any related kernel issues.
From 2.4.19 on, the IRQ parser for PIRQ tables for geodes is broken.
That could be part of the problem.
ron _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org
http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
* ramesh bios ramesh_bios@yahoo.com [050301 08:19]:
That's odd. My understanding might be lacking.
I think the PIRQ table parser in 2.6.10 seems to work because it works when I use the normal BIOS.
Sure normal BIOS does not provide ACPI instead? In such case, PIRQ stays mostly untouched.
Stefan
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, ramesh bios wrote:
That's odd. My understanding might be lacking.
I think the PIRQ table parser in 2.6.10 seems to work because it works when I use the normal BIOS.
no, it's messy. Some bioses set IRQ settings that don't agree with their own PIRQ tables. I've seen this in practice. So the fact that the normal BIOS has working IRQs means nothing.
I'd like a URL for the Cox/Christer discussion :-) ron
-
ramesh bios -
Ronald G. Minnich -
Stefan Reinauer