🚀 go-pugleaf

PCI devices can share IRQ's.  Is it possible the devices are sharing
with the video card, or simply doesn't need one?

Todd

Michael Reuvers wrote:
> 
> I have a PC that refused to assign IRQ's to my PnP PCI network card and
> modem. The only card that seems to work in the PCI slots in the video card.
> I was thinking it might be a mother board problem and was going to try
> flashing the BIOS. What is the possiblities that it is the Video card
> causing the problem? Any ideas?
> 
> Please help!
> 
> ...Mike

-- 

Spam filters in place.  If you are accidently blocked, remove nospam.

But the devices don't work. And when I do diagnostic on the network card it
fails the IRQ test.

ToddEStan wrote in message <376E5CED.43B3425@nospam.visi.com>...
>PCI devices can share IRQ's.  Is it possible the devices are sharing
>with the video card, or simply doesn't need one?
>
>Todd
>
>Michael Reuvers wrote:
>>
>> I have a PC that refused to assign IRQ's to my PnP PCI network card and
>> modem. The only card that seems to work in the PCI slots in the video
card.
>> I was thinking it might be a mother board problem and was going to try
>> flashing the BIOS. What is the possiblities that it is the Video card
>> causing the problem? Any ideas?
>>
>> Please help!
>>
>> ...Mike
>
>--
>
>Spam filters in place.  If you are accidently blocked, remove nospam.

Previously in <kltb3.35240$%65.81344@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
Michael Reuvers <mreuvers@fieldav.com> said:
>But the devices don't work. And when I do diagnostic on the network card 
>it
>fails the IRQ test.
If you don't need the IRQ for the video card, you could disable it in
the BIOS to free up the interrupt exclusively for the modem.

The only reason I've found for assigning an IRQ to a video card is
for PnP monitors. I guess there must be more, but I can't think of
many occasions when a video card needs to talk back to the
motherboard.
-- 
(Newsgroup Mailbox)

Personal replies invited to "Newsgroup@Ghastly.Demon.Co.UK"
Spam not invited.

        "It's not got much spam in it"
        "I don't care!! I don't LIKE spam!!!"

In article <bASi2GAVT9b3EwPb@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
<Newsgroup@ghastly.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Previously in <kltb3.35240$%65.81344@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
>Michael Reuvers <mreuvers@fieldav.com> said:
>>But the devices don't work. And when I do diagnostic on the network card 
>>it
>>fails the IRQ test.
>If you don't need the IRQ for the video card, you could disable it in
>the BIOS to free up the interrupt exclusively for the modem.
>
>The only reason I've found for assigning an IRQ to a video card is
>for PnP monitors. I guess there must be more, but I can't think of
>many occasions when a video card needs to talk back to the
>motherboard.

IME Most modern video cards *require* an IRQ.

TB

On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:15:51 -0600, "Michael Reuvers"
<mreuvers@fieldav.com> wrote:

>I have a PC that refused to assign IRQ's to my PnP PCI network card and
>modem. The only card that seems to work in the PCI slots in the video card.
>I was thinking it might be a mother board problem and was going to try
>flashing the BIOS. What is the possiblities that it is the Video card
>causing the problem? Any ideas?
>

Not sure if this is any help but it seems like I have heard that card
placement is important on the PCI slots.  I think if you only have one
card you cannot put it in the top slot and if you have more than one
then the video has to go in the top with everything else below.

This may be totally off base or just plain wrong but it's a thought
that came to mind as I read your post.


  "If something is worth doing, read the directions FIRST"

Gary

This morning I tried disabling the IRQ for my TNT2 on my SOYO 5EHM+.
The result was Windows 95 booted in 16 colors.  This was not what I had
hoped for ;-)

'Dungeon' Dave wrote:
> 
> Previously in <kltb3.35240$%65.81344@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> Michael Reuvers <mreuvers@fieldav.com> said:
> >But the devices don't work. And when I do diagnostic on the network card
> >it
> >fails the IRQ test.
> If you don't need the IRQ for the video card, you could disable it in
> the BIOS to free up the interrupt exclusively for the modem.
> 
> The only reason I've found for assigning an IRQ to a video card is
> for PnP monitors. I guess there must be more, but I can't think of
> many occasions when a video card needs to talk back to the
> motherboard.
-- 
                                                ________________
________________________________________________\              /_____
 SW-Engineering - Design - VJ52                  \            /
 phone(home) : 0495 278 374                    Vandenbosch Steven
 phone(work) : +32-3-240 7790                   ALCATEL  TELECOM
 fax   : +32-3-240 9960                         Fr.Wellesplein 1
 mailto:steven.vandenbosch@alcatel.be         2018 Antwerp Belgium
______________________________________________________\  /___________
URL: http://www.alcatel.com                            \/

Previously in <ep+JdDAmc+b3EwcT@dbqa.demon.co.uk>, Tom
Bird <hamster@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
>IME Most modern video cards *require* an IRQ.
I think it's more a case of modern operating systems require an
IRQ to be assigned to the card so that it can interrogate it plus the
attached monitor.

I have disabled the IRQ assignment in the BIOS on some
machines and the OS doesn't seem all that bothered. '95 is the
only one that kicked up a fuss, claiming that there was a hardware
fault (or "unknown device") so I left it on for compatibility.
-- 
(Newsgroup Mailbox)

Personal replies invited to "Newsgroup@Ghastly.Demon.Co.UK"
Spam not invited.

        "It's not got much spam in it"
        "I don't care!! I don't LIKE spam!!!"

Previously in <37709F62.C67637EC@maar.uit>, steven
<zoek.het@maar.uit> said:
>This morning I tried disabling the IRQ for my TNT2 on my SOYO 5EHM+.
>The result was Windows 95 booted in 16 colors.  This was not what I had
>hoped for ;-)
... but I bet it didn't clash IRQs with any other device!!!

'95 will boot with default 640x480x16colours (often looking like
safe mode when it doesn't have a display driver. And for '95 to
install a driver, it needs to find out what card it is. And the
operating system needs to communicate with the card, it needs
an IRQ.

However, other OSes that don't use resource-hungry graphical
displays don't really require these drivers, nor an IRQ.

I've disabled the IRQ in a BIOS, and powered up the machine. The
result was Linux booted in two colours (white text on black
background - horrible!!) on the console. It's all I needed!! :->
-- 
(Newsgroup Mailbox)

Personal replies invited to "Newsgroup@Ghastly.Demon.Co.UK"
Spam not invited.

        "It's not got much spam in it"
        "I don't care!! I don't LIKE spam!!!"

In article <C0ePEFAFVUc3EwnO@ghastly.demon.co.uk>, 'Dungeon' Dave
<Newsgroup@ghastly.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Previously in <ep+JdDAmc+b3EwcT@dbqa.demon.co.uk>, Tom
>Bird <hamster@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
>>IME Most modern video cards *require* an IRQ.
>I think it's more a case of modern operating systems require an
>IRQ to be assigned to the card so that it can interrogate it plus the
>attached monitor.
>
>I have disabled the IRQ assignment in the BIOS on some
>machines and the OS doesn't seem all that bothered. '95 is the
>only one that kicked up a fuss, claiming that there was a hardware
>fault (or "unknown device") so I left it on for compatibility.

I tried that on my old graphics card (Velocity 128) and it just took an
IRQ anyway.

TB

Tom Bird writes,
[stuff about IRQ's]

It's amazing how much trouble some ppl have with IRQ's and I've never
had any problems with them.  I've got 2 ISA cards, 2 PCI cards, 2 COM
ports (do these take IRQ's?) and 1 LPT port (takes an IRQ?).  How many
IRQ's do PC's have?  Is there a "map" of IRQ's somewhere that shows you
what's attached to them?

I suppose juggling IRQ's was like the good ol' days of juggling about to
get 3 Kb more conventional memory...?
-- 
Paul Richards (AKA Pauldoo)
mailto:paul@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk
http://www.dunvegan1.demon.co.uk/paul/info.html

In article <rO9ACAAphHe3EwAI@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk>,
	Paul Richards <Paul@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Tom Bird writes,
> [stuff about IRQ's]
> 
> It's amazing how much trouble some ppl have with IRQ's and I've never
> had any problems with them.  I've got 2 ISA cards, 2 PCI cards, 2 COM
> ports (do these take IRQ's?)

  Yes.

> and 1 LPT port (takes an IRQ?).

  Depends. If in standard mode then it doesn't need one.  In ECP mode
it will try and grab one.

>  How many IRQ's do PC's have?

   In theory - 16. Some are predefined by the PC, so rather fewer than
that are available for plug-in cards.

>  Is there a "map" of IRQ's somewhere that shows you
> what's attached to them?

  Under old MSDOS 'MSD' attempted to do this.  It often got it wrong.

  Under Win9x go into ControlPanel->Systemi->Device Manager.  Select
'Computer' (the root of the tree displayed) and click the Properties
button.

> 
> I suppose juggling IRQ's was like the good ol' days of juggling about to
> get 3 Kb more conventional memory...?

  Indeed.

  Regards,
      Harry.

Richard Slobod <71231.104@compuserve.com> wrote in message
<3779c2c0.67039642@news.warwick.net>...
>haeb@haeb.noc.easynet.net (Harry Broomhall) wrote:
>>In article <rO9ACAAphHe3EwAI@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk>,
>> Paul Richards <Paul@dunvegan1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> and 1 LPT port (takes an IRQ?).
>>
>>  Depends. If in standard mode then it doesn't need one.  In ECP mode
>>it will try and grab one.
>
>While it's not usually used, even an old unidirectional (non-EPP,
>non-ECP) parallel port gets assigned an IRQ (although Win9x seems
>quite willing to ignore this and let you set it up in the Device
>Manager without the IRQ assignment).
>
>>>  How many IRQ's do PC's have?
>>
>>   In theory - 16. Some are predefined by the PC, so rather fewer than
>>that are available for plug-in cards.
>
>Actually, it's only 15 even before you start taking the preassigned
>ones into account because IRQs 2 and 9 are one and the same.
Well There are actually 16, it is just the IRQ2, is disconnected from the
'outside world', and used as the 'cascade' to generate the other eight. On
most of the modern chipsets, it doesn't even come out of the chip, but
functionally you can still program it, but you just receive an interrupt,
when any of the interrupts occur from the second controller. It is distinct
from 9, but 9 is the IRQ, that gets connected to the wire it used to have.
It is a bit of a 'pedant' thing, but just because it is not available,
doesn't make it 'not exist' :-)

Best Wishes