Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> 
>>Indeed, looks like only pin 0 (INT_A of that card) is connected. :-(
> 
> 
> Well, I'd say it looks like the MP table _claims_ that only pin0 is 
> connected. Remember: the claim was that this machine worked on WinXP.
> 
> So there are at least two potential reasons for that:
> 
>  - The MP table is simply wrong, and WinXP gets the routing information 
>    from somewhere else (ie most likely ACPI)
> 
>  - The MP table is right, and only pin0 is connected, and WinXP only uses 
>    pin0 (ie it puts the card in some state where all irqs are shared 
>    across all of the four tulip chips).
> 
> Maybe somebody can come up with other schenarios.
> 
> It would be interesting to hear what "Device Manager" (or whatever it is
> called) unde WinXP claims the interrupts are on this machine... Are they
> all on irq 48 on XP too? Or has XP gotten magic knowledge somewhere
> (ACPI?) and they are on different irq's?
> 
> 		Linus


I installed Win 2000 on this machine. It assigned every port its own interrupt,
(IRQ 48-51), but it reported 'device is not functioning properly' on the
first port (IRQ 48).

Ron Arts

-- 
Netland Internet Services
bedrijfsmatige internetoplossingen

http://www.netland.nl   Kruislaan 419              1098 VA Amsterdam
info: 020-5628282       servicedesk: 020-5628280   fax: 020-5628281

Sorry Rabbit, Phasers are for kids...