Re: irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Chris Mailer wrote: > Hello, > > Im using an old Evo N600c laptop with rtw0 pcmcia cardbus lancard. > Utilizing the lancard (e.g. through netstart) while playing sound as > well as playing sound while beeing online leads to an immediate system > freeze. >

irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Chris Mailer
Hello, Im using an old Evo N600c laptop with rtw0 pcmcia cardbus lancard. Utilizing the lancard (e.g. through netstart) while playing sound as well as playing sound while beeing online leads to an immediate system freeze. It seems that sound and network share IRQ 11. I tried to change the IRQ

Re: irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Theo de Raadt
What you are trying to do is insane, wrong, and entirely unsupported. > Ok, sorry. Here it comes: > 20 alipm* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 > 221 viapm* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 > 222 amdiic* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 > 223 nviic* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0

Re: irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Chris Mailer
Ok, sorry. Here it comes: 20 alipm* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 221 viapm* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 222 amdiic* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 223 nviic* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 224 sdhc* at pci* dev -1 function -1 flags 0x0 225 kate* at pci* dev -1 function

Re: irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Ted Unangst
Chris Mailer wrote: > Ok, thanks for the straight forward reply:) > Is there any other solution to get lan and wifi working together? Find the bug. :) Interrupt sharing should not be a problem. It indicates a some other problem exists, and that's the one that should be fixed. This is not

Re: irq sharing leads to system freeze

2015-11-16 Thread Chris Mailer
Ok, thanks for the straight forward reply:) Is there any other solution to get lan and wifi working together? Thanks, Chris On 11/16/15, Theo de Raadt wrote: > What you are trying to do is insane, wrong, and entirely unsupported. > >> Ok, sorry. Here it comes: >> 20