On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:39:42PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Claim Topic TP560 data/fax/voice modem. This device reports as class 0x0780,
> so we don't claim it by default:
Applied, thanks.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:39:42PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Claim Topic TP560 data/fax/voice modem. This device reports as class 0x0780,
so we don't claim it by default:
Applied, thanks.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 07:25 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> >> I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
> >> such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
> >> the IRQ
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 07:25 -0500, linux-os wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
> such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
> the IRQ was correct.
>
> I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
> Has the new function been
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
Has the new function been added?
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Claim Topic TP560
Claim Topic TP560 data/fax/voice modem. This device reports as class 0x0780,
so we don't claim it by default:
00:0d.0 Class 0780: 151f:
Subsystem: 151f:
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 11
Region 0: I/O ports at a400 [size=8]
Claim Topic TP560 data/fax/voice modem. This device reports as class 0x0780,
so we don't claim it by default:
00:0d.0 Class 0780: 151f:
Subsystem: 151f:
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 11
Region 0: I/O ports at a400 [size=8]
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
Has the new function been added?
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Claim Topic TP560
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
I thought somebody promised to add a pci_route_irq(dev) or some
such so that the device didn't have to be enabled before
the IRQ was correct.
I first reported this bad IRQ problem back in December of 2004.
Has the new function been added?
12 matches
Mail list logo