Subject: Re: pciide performance on alpha
To: Ross Harvey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael T. Stolarchuk <email@example.com>
Date: 08/12/1999 15:14:06
In message <199908121907.MAA17930@elbe.ghs.com>, Ross Harvey writes:
>> From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:46:53 +0200
>> Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > The problem here is that he is getting the same bad performances with a
>> > Promise Ultra/33, where the same board with the same driver in a PC flies ...
>> > Maybe there's a problem at a upper level (mainbus/pci bridge) ?
>> > A lot of parameter seems uninitialised as well in the standart PCI header
>> > (latency being one).
>> I think I remember someone else mentioning that the PCI Latency Timer wasn't
>> initialized properly by the firmware on some PC164 models...
>I have wondered recently if the 100BaseT problems at pdq.com might be due
>to either a generic PCI config space botch by SRM or due to a tulip- specific
>config botch. (I suspect it would be Bad if eitehr CSR0:<PBL>, Programmable
>Burst Length or <CAL>, Cache Alignment were botched by the FW.)
It could be, but we at pdq.com also tried fxp cards, and had
the *same* problems. It would then be true only if the fxp
also played with the same parameters.