Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!csugrad.cs.vt.edu!csugrad.cs.vt.edu!not-for-mail From: jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: IRQ 9 unsafe? Date: 4 Jul 1995 15:22:31 -0400 Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3tc4dn$9k2@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> References: <gztQkHQ@quack.kfu.com> <3t940q$cf4@anshar.shadow.net> Reply-To: jaitken@vt.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Don Whiteside (dwhite@anshar.shadow.net) wrote: : Nick Sayer (nsayer@quack.kfu.com) wrote: : : I suspect, however, that the problem : : might simply have been attempting to make use of IRQ 9, which I : : believe has some other use in ISA PCs. Anyone have any words of : : wisdom on this subject? : IRQ 9 is indeed a cascaded IRQ 2. Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean? I've been using IRQ9 for the parallel port for some time with no apparent trouble. I originally user IRQ7 (the default for a parallel port, I think) but the Soundblaster interfered with that, and I already had an ethernet card at IRQ5. The parallel/serial card has a jumper block allowing you to set the IRQ of each interface, and '9' was one of the options. Will this have side effects? -- Jeff Aitken jaitken@vt.edu