[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interrupts - electrical question
- To: Mailing List Recipients <pci-sig-request@znyx.com>
- Subject: Re: Interrupts - electrical question
- From: Andy Ingraham 29-Jan-1997 0846 <ingraham@wrksys.ENET.dec.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 08:50:19 EST
- Apparently-To: pci-sig@znyx.com, holeman@austx.tandem.com (jim holeman)
- Cc: pci-sig@znyx.com, ingraham@wrksys.ENET.dec.com
- Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 08:50:19 EST
- Resent-From: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <"dRNR41.0.7k4.hUrxo"@dart>
- Resent-Sender: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
> We are developing a PCI carrier board (not for Windows) with 4 slots.
> It is advantageous for us to segregate interrupts on a per slot basis
> (even in the case of multi-function cards).
> Is there any reason, why I couldn't tie all four interrupts (INTA#, INTB#,
> INTC#, INTD#) from a given PCI slot together to form a single interrupt.
> Thus, I would have four interrupts, one from each slot.
The PCI spec rev. 2.1, section 2.2.6, says: "The system vendor is
free to combine the various INTx# signals from the PCI connector(s) in
any way to connect them to the interrupt controller."
If all you wanted to do was to funnel the 16 INTx# lines down to four
interrupts, the Implementation Note on Interrupt Routing on page 14 of
the PCI spec is suggested ... but not required. If you have a
compelling reason to combine interrupts on a per slot basis, the PCI
spec lets you.
Regards,
Andy Ingraham
N 8 &