From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 21 06:17:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA12956 for current-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 06:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ady.warp.starnets.ro (ady.warp.starnets.ro [193.226.124.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA12937; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 06:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ady@localhost) by ady.warp.starnets.ro (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11141; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:14:52 +0300 (EEST) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:14:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Penisoara Adrian To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: dg@root.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I am contemplating the following change... In-Reply-To: <21008.869326490@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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)