On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:01:02PM +, J.A.Serralheiro wrote:
> > It's a 16450 UART [or something like that]. Hence 1 byte FIFO instead of
> > 16 byte FIFO.
> >
> > If the interrupts were unmasked properly then I wouldn't need to get new
> > hardware... As I said, it works in 2.2.x series...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:56:59PM +1100, Matt Chipman wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have a 486 with 1 byte serial FIFO. This means if I transfer stuff
> > > through my modem, I get a bunch of bits lost when HD trasnfer any
> > > data. To
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:56:59PM +1100, Matt Chipman wrote:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a 486 with 1 byte serial FIFO. This means if I transfer stuff
> > through my modem, I get a bunch of bits lost when HD trasnfer any
> > data. To fix the problem I unmasked IRQs on the HD controller.
> >
> Hi all,
>
> I have a 486 with 1 byte serial FIFO. This means if I transfer stuff
> through my modem, I get a bunch of bits lost when HD trasnfer any
> data. To fix the problem I unmasked IRQs on the HD controller.
>
I could be way off the mark here but when your system boots, does it
say 2
Hi all,
I have a 486 with 1 byte serial FIFO. This means if I transfer stuff
through my modem, I get a bunch of bits lost when HD trasnfer any data.
To fix the problem I unmasked IRQs on the HD controller.
This worked with 2.2.x series.
It fails to unmask the interrupts in the 2.4.x series. in /
5 matches
Mail list logo
