Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Jun 1999 00:30:29 +0100 (GMT) | From | Riley Williams <> | Subject | Re: Hard coding default COM3/4 IRQ. |
| |
Hi Mike.
>> What I found is that by assuming that the default IRQ 3 and 4 >> are used, I got *much* less e-mail complaints. Those who are >> using their own custom hardware in general are smart enough to >> figure out how to fix it on their own --- and the amount of >> requests of assistance from less experienced folks who are using >> the cheapest hardware they could find went a down a lot; these >> folks win by using the IRQ 3/4 default settings, and their cheap >> hardware would have lost if we tried to autodetect their IRQ and >> fail.
> I'm sure that everything you've stated is correct, with respect > to chips that aren't "as advertised" - however, I've installed > Windows 95 on a heck of a lot of machines, as well as Win98, and > I've not yet ever seen it get the modem IRQ wrong. That doesn't > say that it doesn't - it is just rare if ever (which is a > miracle for win95).
Isn't it just !!!
> On most of the machines that I get my hands on, the modem goes > on COM3/IRQ2, because I've yet to have any major conflicts > statistically speaking.
On the machines I set up, I have a look at the sound card first, and find out what interrupts that can use, and how many it needs. Based on that, the modem will get put on COM3/IRQ5 if that's free, or COM3/IRQ2 if not, as Win98 appears to be slightly more stable on the former setting than the latter.
> Therefore, my theory is that it can be done, and done at least as > good as W95 (even if it means reverse engineering _gulp_ windows > 95's autodetection routines).
As far as I can tell, the autoirq routines in Linux 2.0.3[56] are superior to those in Win95 and about on a par with those of Win98.
> Linux should not force the user to do things that other OS's can > demonstrably autoconfigure with little or no problems. I like > the compile time option of autoconfigure serial that is in 2.2.x. > I haven't tested it yet, but if it breaks on some machines, then > it just needs some more work until it gets set properly.
Precicely the point I made to Ted back when 2.0.35 was current...
> IMHO, this will only happen if people test it, and report > failures, along with their complete system configuration, and > chipset info, etc..
All too true...
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux | | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, | | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone | | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ * ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux * http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
- 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/
| |