home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!occrsh!fang!gator!rde!tssi!dsndata!netcomsv!cruzio!aki
- From: aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
- Subject: Re: Protected Mode Interrupts
- Message-ID: <4614@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 10:08:45 PST
- References: <1992Oct29.075500.15529@cis.ohio-state.edu> <GAH.92Nov9190759@HP370T.trc.mew.mei.co.jp>
- Sender: aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Reply-To: aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
- Lines: 18
-
-
-
- I don't see a major problem in sharing interrupt numbers between
- IRQ chips and exceptions. You layer an exception handler on top
- of an IRQ handler. The exception handler checks if the PIC is
- requesting an interrupt. If it is, just call the IRQ handler.
- Otherwise handle the exception. Of course the billion dollar
- question is how to handle an exception that happens simultaneously
- with an IRQ. I don't have a billion bucks, thus I don't know.
- I suggest that everyone just moves the IRQs somewhere else. You
- can program the PIC with three bytes if you want to. Anybody
- want to get the data? I would need to dig it out of the manuals
- again, but it would be no problem.
-
- Aki
- --
- / Phone: 408-662 9664 Fax: 662 9676 | "Aki" pronounced: Ah-Key. I know \
- \ 125 Searidge Ct #D, Aptos, CA 95003 | what I'm doing most of the time. /
-