On Aug 18, Joost Kooij wrote > > Um, I don't think it is a very healthy practice to use irq 2 for a serial > port. > > Irq 2 is called the "cascade interrupt". Pc-xt's, which have only one > interrupt controller, have 8 irq's, but in at's a second controller is > cascaded from the primary interrupt controller's irq 2 to yield a total of > 15 usable interrupts (because you cannot use irq 2 for a real interrupt > anymore.) Read a pc-hardware faq if you want to know more about this. > > So unless you are running linux on a 8086, you can forget irq 2, I think.
I've been using this on my (internal) modem for a while now and havn't seen any problems - I used to get the full 3+Kbps that my modem can manage - but now I've moved and had an extension put in and it doesn't seem as good :-( As has been pointed out, it is also IRQ9 (win95 can't cope with 2!, and the modem doesn't have a jumper for 9) If this really is a problem, please let me know (but I've no idea which IRQ to use as most of the rest seem used up by various strange things!) Adrian -- .signature in post -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .