Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 12:13:51 -0400 From: "Sean O'Connell" <sean@stat.Duke.EDU> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: FreeBSD mobile <freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: PAO+ep0 slooooow Message-ID: <19990503121351.P23827@stat.Duke.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199905031608.KAA03370@mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Mon, May 03, 1999 at 10:08:54AM -0600 References: <m10eIlE-0008G4C@rip.psg.com> <19990503101305.L23827@stat.Duke.EDU> <m10eKfR-0008G8C@rip.psg.com> <199905031608.KAA03370@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999 May 03, Nate Williams (aka nate@mt.sri.com) wrote: > What windoze uses is irrelevant, because the PCIC and cards can use any > available IRQ in the system. I have not found this to be the case! If the hardware is still "interrupting" on 10 you are screwed. It's sort of like a *&^%ing winmodem. Let me restate, not true for pcic ... probably true for ep0. > > > I had a similar problem with ep0 and an HP Omnibook. The pcic_irq > > > was being set to 3 (even though the hardware wanted to be on 10) > > Just because windows used IRQ 10 means nothing. We can use IRQ 3 w/out > any problems. On ep0? Never tried ... I like things to "just work". > > > and > > > ep0 just wouldn't work on 10 (due to the pcic listening there). It > > > was not until I had pcic on 10 and ep0 on 11 that life was happy. > > It shouldn't have made any difference. Is it possible that the second > serial port was setup on IRQ 3? Ooooh or worse yet, an IR port! > Nate s -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean O'Connell Email: sean@stat.Duke.EDU Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences Phone: (919) 684-5419 Duke University Fax: (919) 684-8594 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990503121351.P23827>