On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/20/2010 11:29 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 07/19/2010 09:19 PM, Robert Hancock wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> I still no point in comparing this to Windows' setup. We can't find out >>>>>> whether it is quirked or better (without some bug) handled there. >>>>> >>>>> Well, you can see if Windows shows IRQ 10 or 11 for that device.. >>>> >>>> But how can I find out which link it is routed to in Windows? Without >>>> that information the number is meaningless, no? >>> >>> If you look at the pattern of which IRQs are shared by what devices in >>> Linux and compare it to Windows you can get a good idea. Normally the >>> assignment of devices to interrupt lines is hard-wired on the >>> motherboard and doesn't change. >> >> Ok, thanks for the hint. >> >> What we've found out is that it works on 2.6.27 (with slightly changed >> configuration). > > No, this was a false alarm. It never worked with acpi irq routing on > older kernels in this HW configuration. > > So, to sum up: > 1) acpi routing enabled (no kernel parameter) => ports 4+5 defunct. > ports 4+5+6+7 are all on irq 11 > > 2) acpi routing disabled (acpi=noirq) => all ports working, 4+5 on irq > 10, 6+7 on irq 11 > > 3) with the quirk [1] and acpi routing enabled => all ports working, > ports 4+5 on irq 10, 6+7 on irq 11 > > 4) in windows => 4+5+6+7 are all on irq 9 and the ports are all working. > > Any ideas what this means? Especially point 4)? > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/27/85 I think that's the key question. Is Windows actually using ACPI on that machine at all? (Check the computer type in Device Manager and see if it mentions ACPI.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
