On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Rudolf Marek <[email protected]> wrote: >> I booted again, and IRQ9 has 10x the interrupts as any other source. >> I guess that means it's not a shared one? > > Hmm and MPtable has no entries for this IRQ? So it must be something else. > It makes me wonder what changes trigger the irq9 storm. Perhaps kernel would > complain even when there is none handler at all. I think it says Spurious IRQ then.
> Any ideas what it could be? maybe booting irqroute=pic or smth like this > could > force the old way of pci routing... but leaving IRQ9 for acpi. Should be > interesting test. I'll try it. > Maybe you have smth wrong in FADT? Dont know Could be. I've tried matching the factory and yours. >> Won't I have to add IRQ 9 to the mptable? Will it find it otherwise? > > If Irq 9 is not used then it must be something else. Is old coreboot having > MPtable entries >15? Yes. 21,22,23... I copied the interrupts for the DSDT from the MPtable. > Or write simple kernel driver just requesting IRQ9 and > returing IRQ_NONE with old coreboot. See if IRQ is busy too. I'll look around, someone must have already written one. Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
