On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Rudolf Marek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm assuming that since I have the problem on my Tyan s2895 and s2892, >>> and they have different superIOs that that's not the problem. What do >>> you think? >>> >> >> Ok then. But it is worth to check if there is no misconfiguration. The IRQ >> regs are on std places. > OK. I'll compare superiotool output from factory and Coreboot. > >>> Ah. I'm sorry I think you've tried to tell me this multiple times but >>> I've missed it. You're saying that the IRQ is getting sent to two >>> different IRQs and one of them has a handler, but the other doesn't?
I booted again, and IRQ9 has 10x the interrupts as any other source. I guess that means it's not a shared one? >> Yes thats what I think. Second option is that it is something else like some >> nVidia ACPI timer, but this is unlikely becuase we would have seen this >> before the changes. >> >> Maybe you can boot orig coreboot sources and see what device listens on IRQ >> 9 ;) > > Sure. I'll try that too. Won't I have to add IRQ 9 to the mptable? Will it find it otherwise? > Thanks, > Myles > -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
