From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <40271856.7020100@cox.net>
From: Chris Van Horne <cvanhorne@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402082203260.18308-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402082203260.18308-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun,  8 Feb 2004 22:19:18 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d3d28630-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

chipset:  Intel 82371AB PIIX4

The PCMCIA yenta is showing on IRQ 11, as is the e100, while the wavelan
(WPC11 v3) is on IRQ 3.

ron minnich wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yep, ether{0,1} are both on IRQ 11.
>>
>>
>
>yeah, that's an amazingly common setup. I'm curious, do you know what the
>chipset is? I wonder if Plan 9 did something wrong with the IRQ table
>management?
>
>Did you see what the IRQs are on a working OS, or is this IRQ 11 thing
>what Plan 9 set up?
>
>ron
>
>
>
>