On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:46:05AM -0500, Uncle George wrote:
> I might say that NT, the other half of my 486 is quite content with the
> disposition of the I/O card, even with the ( I personnaly didn't know it was
> set at ) strange IRQ setting. One does not understand why the current set of
> kernels could not do the same!
Autodetection is unreliable and causes problems, as it was said. NT
may do that, but NT is supposed to be running on better hardware. No
guarantees for other systems. Linux is supposed to run everywhere.
> I dont understand where the problems could crop up. If I were to try to detect
> the IRQ for each of the well know Serial I/O addresses, I would simply
> redirect the interrupt vectors ( temporarily ) to addresses that I am aware
> of. This appears to be exceedingly simple, but I suppose the concept of
> modules, may make that dangerous to do.
There is IRQ autodetection code.
And modules never do autodetection anyway. It's "acceptable" that the
kernel crashes because of bad hardware probing while starting, but it's
absolutely inacceptable to crash a running system by inserting a
module.
> Has the kernel addressed IRQ daisy chaining ? or is still 1 IRQ/device.
Do you mean IRQ sharing? Supported of course (required for PCI). Not
for ISA, because ISA does not support shared IRQs.
--
Andreas E. Bombe <andreas.bombe@munich.netsurf.de>
http://home.pages.de/~andreas.bombe/ DSA key 0x04880A44
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:30 EST