Re: spurious interrupt
Dear Andy,
Thanks for the reply. I'm embarassed that I didn't do a proper job of searching for the answer myself.
One possible source of the problem may be that I have a routing conflict between irq 7 and irq 9 caused by my sound card clashing with the sound device built into the motherboard (dmesg tells me this). But if I remove the sound card, I get no sound - the sound port on the motherboard doesn't seem to work.
Thanks again for the help.
best regards,
Robert
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:09:17 -0500
Andy Firman <andy@firman.us> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:47:01PM +0100, Robert Storey wrote:
> > For some reason, when I logged on today I received this message:
> >
> > "spurious 8259A, interrupt: IRQ7"
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is anything to worry about at all. Anyone have an idea what it means?
>
> I did a little searching for you. There was a recent thread on this.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200310/msg05114.html
>
> Then I found this for you:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html#spurious-8259A-interrupt
>
> spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ14
>
> Short summary: It's a hardware problem (usually). Transient Line-noise/crosstalk persuades the PIC
> that something happened; this can result in a 'dummy' interrupt being raised, which happens to be IRQ7
> with intel's 8259 design.The problem could possibly also be caused by (or instead be caused by) a device
> driver not properly masking its interrupts before servicing, this would be the suspect if the IRQ7's were
> happening in bursts, or more often than 'several' per day. (Source and additional information)
>
> Since the message itself is harmless, it's enough to adjust the default loglevel outplut of klogd (the
> -c opion) in the syslogd bootscript. See man klogd for details. You can also try recompiling the kernel
> and unset CONFIG_LOCAL_APIC.
>
>
> -Andy
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: