From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Jul 19 14:26:02 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA20372 for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shogun.tdktca.com ([206.26.1.21]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA20365 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shogun.tdktca.com (daemon@localhost) by shogun.tdktca.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) with ESMTP id QAA20612 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:26:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from fa.tdktca.com (bsd.fa.tdktca.com [163.49.131.129]) by shogun.tdktca.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) with ESMTP id QAA20605 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:26:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from alex@localhost) by fa.tdktca.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA13988; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:31:21 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:31:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Alex Nash To: Brett Glass cc: bde@zeta.org.au, E00114@vnet.atea.be, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiple COM ports with same IRQ In-Reply-To: <9606198378.AA837808819@ccgate.infoworld.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Brett Glass wrote: > > maybe you can tell me how an EISA/ISA box solves the IRQ sharing problem > > for ISA devices. > > It doesn't. Of course not, it was rhetorical. > Only EISA devices or E-ISA devices can share IRQs. I think you misunderstand (and why wouldn't you now that you've removed the context of my message :). The original poster wrote: ISA boxes can have hardware installed (accidentally?) with devices sharing the same IRQ, but the drivers cannot deal with it. I responded with a spiel about IRQ sharing with an ISA bus being an electrical constraint, not a driver constraint. Bruce responded with... That's why he only wanted to share them for EISA/ISA boxes :-). Now help me out if I just don't get this, but the text I had quoted was about ISA, my followup was about ISA, and then I was corrected(?) because the original poster wanted to use EISA/ISA boxes (yet I was not discussing EISA at all). I didn't understand why it was relevant that the sharing was being done on an EISA/ISA box. Alex