On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ian Molton wrote:
>
> > Well if they are only masked they shouldnt stop being asserted. But we
> > should unmask them again.
> >
> > Im not really sure we should mask them anyway, with the card possibly
> > being gone... Wi
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ian Molton wrote:
> Well if they are only masked they shouldnt stop being asserted. But we
> should unmask them again.
>
> Im not really sure we should mask them anyway, with the card possibly
> being gone... Will need to look into it further.
Hi Ingo
What's the status of t
Well if they are only masked they shouldnt stop being asserted. But we
should unmask them again.
Im not really sure we should mask them anyway, with the card possibly
being gone... Will need to look into it further.
2009/11/9 Guennadi Liakhovetski :
> (re-adding accidentally dropped ML)
>
> On Mo
(re-adding accidentally dropped ML)
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Ian Molton wrote:
> Well, I presume we want to know when the card gets removed :)
Sure, that's why we shouldn't mask those interrupts:-) If they do get
masked and missed, I do not know, if the interrupt remains pending in this
case, becau
