Subject: Re: PCMCIA CIS irqmask being ignored?
To: Rafal Boni <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: msaitoh <email@example.com>
Date: 11/02/1998 16:26:52
> So, I think I know how to fix it, but I have several questions.
> (1) I assume the IRQMASK in the CIS is the same format as the PCIC_
> ISA_INTR_ALLOC_MASK, namely a bit field with a 1 in bit N if IRQ
> N is a valid choice for this card?? If not, what is the format
> of this mask?
> (2) Why wasn't the card's IRQMASK being used? Was this just overlooked,
> or are there actually cards that present bogus masks (or don't have
> IRQMASKS) and hence this was decided to be ignored??
> If the answer to (1) is "yes", and the answer to (2) is "we forgot",
> I'll sned-pr a patch to i82365_isasubr.c that got my modem the right
> IRQs under separate cover.
The answer to (1) is "yes", and the answer to (2) is "we don't forget"
PC Card standard March 1997, section 126.96.36.199 Volume 4 says:
188.8.131.52: TPCE_IR: Interrupt Request Description Structure
When the IRQ bit is set, it indecates that an interrupt description
follows the I/O address bytes, if any. The interrupt request levels
specfied by the Configuration Table Entry Tuple describe the
preferred routing for the card's IREQ# line. Routing of the IREQ#
interrupts is performed by the host system which actually determines
the system interrupt level used. A client which is the sole consumer
of the card's IREQ# interrupt may elect to route the IREQ# line to a
level not specified by the Configuration Table Entry Tuple.
A generic card configuration utility which is not the ultimate
consumer of the card's IREQ# interrupt should only route to the
specified interrupt levels. ...
SAITOH Masanobu (firstname.lastname@example.org,
University of Electro-Communications