Marc Wilson wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > That isn't right either. IRQ7 is not the lowest priority interrupt > > How do you figure that IRQ7 isn't the lowest priority interrupt? > > IRQ0 timer tick > IRQ1 keyboard > IRQ2 chained to IRQ9 > | IRQ8 RTC > |______IRQ9 chained to IRQ2 > IRQ10 free > IRQ11 free > IRQ12 usually PS/2 port > IRQ13 free (used to be the numeric coprocessor) > IRQ14 primary IDE > IRQ15 secondary IDE > IRQ3 secondary serial > IRQ4 primary serial > IRQ5 free (was the HD interrupt on the XT) > IRQ6 floppy disk > IRQ7 lpt Yep. You are right and I was wrong. It has been a long time since I have needed think about this architecture. I think I am just going to crawl back with my tail between my legs on this one. > The kernel, on the other hand, is sitting there saying "huh, there was no > interrupt for IRQ7 asserted." Agreed. Right or wrong it would have saved the 'net a lot of discussion bandwidth if the kernel had never printed this diagnostic message! :-) Bob
Attachment:
pgpjQUtz2Y4Nh.pgp
Description: PGP signature