lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.045 / U:2.336 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site