Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:14:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Penisoara Adrian <ady@warp.starnets.ro> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: dg@root.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I am contemplating the following change... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970721161225.10338N-100000@ady.warp.starnets.ro> In-Reply-To: <21008.869326490@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > irq 5 is used because it is the standard for all 8bit Western Digital
> > 8003 cards and all 3Com 3c503 boards. I think it might even be the standard
> > for Novell NE1000/NE2000 cards. In other words, it's far more common than
> > irq 10 which is only found on 16bit WD/SMC cards.
>
> It's far more common in the 8 bit cards, yes. I would, however,
> hypothesize that the 16 bit cards have now (or will very shortly)
> outnumber the legacy equipment. I do know that I've certainly
> received a considerable amount of negative feedback over the choice of
> 5 ("5?! Who uses that anymore? 10! The default value should be
> 10! What are you guys thinking?!") :-)
>
> How does the "user base" feel about this?
Well, all computers we configured had/have NE2000 clones with IRQs in the
range of 9,10,11. We usually reserve IRQ 5 for soundcards and IRQ3 is
considered to be 'wired' to COM2...
>
> Jordan
>
Ady (@warp.starnets.ro)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970721161225.10338N-100000>