Re: Why no interrupt priorities?

[Michael Frank]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:37:25 +0100 (CET), Etienne Lorrain <etienne_lorrain@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Russell King wrote:
> > Michael Frank wrote:
> > > Is this to imply that edge triggered shared interrupts
> > > are used anywhere?
> >
> > It is (or used to be) rather common with serial ports.  Remember that
> > COM1 and COM3 were both defined to use IRQ4 and COM2 and COM4 to use
> > IRQ3.
>
>   Some unusual hardware could handle two ports on the same IRQ (the
>  same card mixing itself the IRQ of the two COM port present on the
>  same ISA card) but the mixing could not be reliably handled at the
>  ISA level. Using a resistor and/or a diode instead of a jumper to
>  select the IRQ could also do the trick. So the software was ready
>  to handle two interrupts from two UART on the same IRQ - but you
>  had to have special hardware.

I used those cheapy 8 Channel 8250 serial cards and modified them
by oring 8 interrupts to irq 3.

The IRQ was set to level triggered and on an IRQ one polled the
status regs of all 8 channels. That was _just_ OK on a 8MHz 286
at 9600 baud in a custom designed low latency application
(no FIFOS here).

>   Some people had success having a modem on COM1 and a serial _mouse_
>  on COM3 (or the other way around) because the COM1/modem was winning
>  the control of the ISA IRQ  and the COM3/modem was loosing but because
>  of 1200 bauds transmission speed the timer interrupt was recovering the
>  char received. So they could not tell the difference and did not know
>  why inverting the two serial plug did not work.

:-(

Regards
Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/