Subject: Re: ex0 weird error
To: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
From: Michael L. Hitch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/14/2000 14:14:27
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <20001214132821.A20424@noc.untraceable.net>, Andrew Brown writes:
> >i don't think it did. the first of the two line changes seems to have
> >gone in in a slightly altered form. the second one-liner doesn't look
> >like it went in. here it is again.
> On second thought, I'm not sure how to usefully apply this change.
> Note the subtle difference:
> * Originally, we did the "break" if S_MASK wasn't set.
> * The old patch changed it to break if *neither* S_MASK *nor*
> S_INTR_LATCH was set.
> * Now we do that to, but we spell it out so we can have an #if'd
> out printf about clearing an intr_latch.
> bus_space_write_2(iot, ioh, ELINK_COMMAND, ACK_INTR |
> (stat & S_MASK));
> ... but we don't seem to have S_INTR_LATCH here.
> I'm going to tentatively go ahead and put S_INTR_LATCH back here, but I would
> love it if someone who understands the card could explain what's happening.
I don't understand the card, but I submitted the original PR on this
problem. The only thing I know is that the elinkxl seems to interrupt
once in a while with only the S_INTR_LATCH status bit set. The write of
C_INTR_LATCH apparently clears the S_INTR_LATCH status bit, but since none
of the other status bits are set at that point, the interrupt routine
exits thinking it didn't process any interrupts, and yields a stray
I was thinking about trying to add something like:
ret = bus_space_read_2(iot, ioh, ELINK_STATUS) & S_INTR_LATCH;
just before the for (;;) loop. This should result in a non-zero return
when only the S_INTR_LATCH bit is set.
Michael L. Hitch email@example.com
Information Technology Center
Montana State University Bozeman, MT USA