Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!news.tufts.edu!blanket.mitre.org!news.mathworks.com!news2.mathworks.com!newscaster-1.mcast.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!zib-berlin.de!irz401!uriah.heep!news From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: BSD 2.1 release can't find sio0 Date: 27 May 1996 18:14:26 GMT Organization: Private BSD site, Dresden Lines: 40 Message-ID: <4ocre2$bko@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <31A72BFD.4788@execpc.com> Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.heep.sax.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.6 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Brian & Laura <bkapitan@execpc.com> wrote: (internal modem not found) > I turned the debug flag on for sio0 (0x80), and it fails test 6. > Does this help? Is there a document describing the tests and failure > codes for typical hardware? /sys/i386/isa/sio.c :-) (``All the documentation files typically end in .c.'') It's not unusual that some internal modems fail some of the sio probes. The sio probes have been made more benign since. The problem is that these modems don't have true 16[45]50 UARTs, but emulate them with an ASIC (and/or even software), thus they are not fully bug-compatible with an UART. Now since you already know that it fails test 6, why don't you simply make it more forgiving, or perhaps even remove it? DELAY(1000); /* XXX */ if (idev->id_irq != 0) failures[5] = isa_irq_pending(idev) ? 1 : 0; failures[6] = (inb(iobase + com_iir) & IIR_IMASK) - IIR_NOPEND; Since it passed test 5, the interrupt request has been removed from the PIC (system's interrupt controller). Anyway, failing test 6 means the UART emulation still claims the interrupt being pending. If i were you, i would bump the DELAY above it, 1 ms is apparently too few for your modem. (The code snippet is from my system, it might look different on 2.1R.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)