>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-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
dr
>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-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
dr
>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-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
driver
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
[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 PRO/
>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-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
driver
>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-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
driver
> 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 i
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 arbiter
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
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 ar
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, 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)
It's OK AFAIK.
grep fi
> +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
t
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:
14 matches
Mail list logo
