> It seems like i82365.c implies a PCI device. If this is true, then things do
> make sense here.
No, the VG469 (and original i82365) is most definately an ISA device.
>From the manual: "The VG-469 has built in a standard ISA interface ..."
My machine, as much as I hate it, _does_ have an ISA bus located at
> It has nothing to isa_slot_offset here. I don't know about the
> history of isa_slot_offset, but it appears to be faint effort to
> allow the access to what is called "ISA memory" space on PC. This
> region, if it ever exists, should never be a separate region on a
> MIPS machine. It should just be the beginning part of PCI Memory
The complete memory map of my machine is:
1FC0 0000 - 1FFF FFFF Boot ROM
1E00 0000 - 1EFF FFFF Flash Mem Space
1400 0000 - 14FF FFFF VG-469 I/O Space
1000 0000 - 10FF FFFF VG-469 Mem
0C00 0000 - 0CFF FFFF Processor internal IO Area 1
0A00 0000 - 0A1F FFFF LCD Frame buffer
0A20 0000 - 0A3F FFFF S-MOS Registers
0000 0000 - 01FF FFFF DRAM Space
As I see it, the VG-469 Mem (ie. an ISA bus, since the VG-469 is ISA)
is a separate region.
> Ralf, we should just delete isa_slot_offset to avoid any further confusions.
But my PCMCIA contoller _is_ an ISA device, and we need _something_ to
indicate where its "ISA memory" is physically mapped. If it's not
stuck into a variable, then it's just going to be hard-coded with an
#ifdef for each architecture that does this .. ??
> My understanding is that PCMCIA does it own IRQ re-mapping (somewhat similar
> to P2P bridge IRQ re-mapping).
It's a driver issue. Again, the i82365 is on an ISA bus, and so has
physical interrupt pins IRQ3-15, and uses these values in its
configuration and status registers. The driver expected that these
matched system interrupts, as they usually would on an ISA
architecture; but that of course is not the case, as they're all
wired to the same GPIO pin on my system. I've fixed this in the