-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 57 +
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff -puN drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
drivers/pci/quirks.c
--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 57 +
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff -puN drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
drivers/pci/quirks.c
--- devel/drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 57 +
1 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff -puN drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
drivers/pci/quirks.c
--- devel/drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apparently the Intel PRO/100 device enables interrupts on reset. Unless
firmware explicitly disables PRO/100 interrupts, we can get a flood of
interrupts when a driver attaches to an unrelated device that happens to
share the
On Thursday 27 April 2006 04:00, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apparently the Intel PRO/100 device enables interrupts on reset. Unless
firmware explicitly disables PRO/100 interrupts, we can get a flood of
interrupts when a driver
-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 57 +
1 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff -puN drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
drivers/pci/quirks.c
--- devel/drivers/pci/quirks.c~e100-disable-interrupts-at-boot
On 4/5/06, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:52:24 -0700
+ case 0x1030 ... 0x1034:
Do we use the gcc case range extension in the kernel? (This is an
honest question -- I don't think I've seen it used anywhere,
Apparently the Intel PRO/100 device enables interrupts on reset.
Unless firmware explicitly disables PRO/100 interrupts, we can
get a flood of interrupts when a driver attaches to an unrelated
device that happens to share the PRO/100 IRQ.
This should resolve this irq 11: nobody cared bug report:
+case 0x1030 ... 0x1034:
Do we use the gcc case range extension in the kernel? (This is an
honest question -- I don't think I've seen it used anywhere, and I'd
be curious to know what the taste arbiters think of it)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the
Roland Dreier wrote:
+ case 0x1030 ... 0x1034:
Do we use the gcc case range extension in the kernel? (This is an
honest question -- I don't think I've seen it used anywhere, and I'd
be curious to know what the taste arbiters think of it)
I'm not a fan of it either but it is used already in
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 15:52, Roland Dreier wrote:
+ case 0x1030 ... 0x1034:
Do we use the gcc case range extension in the kernel? (This is an
honest question -- I don't think I've seen it used anywhere, and I'd
be curious to know what the taste arbiters think of it)
There are a
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:52:24 -0700
+ case 0x1030 ... 0x1034:
Do we use the gcc case range extension in the kernel? (This is an
honest question -- I don't think I've seen it used anywhere, and I'd
be curious to know what the taste arbiters think
12 matches
Mail list logo