From owner-freebsd-scsi Tue Feb 15 17: 3:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (blaubaer.kn-bremen.de [195.37.179.254]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79525202 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from saturn.kn-bremen.de (uucp@localhost) by blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with UUCP id BAA02011; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:08:22 +0100 Received: (from nox@localhost) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.9.3/8.8.5) id BAA97277; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:04:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:04:50 +0100 (CET) From: Juergen Lock Message-Id: <200002160004.BAA97277@saturn.kn-bremen.de> To: groudier@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: SC200/ncr53c810 problems X-Newsgroups: local.list.freebsd.scsi In-Reply-To: References: <200002102357.AAA10864@oranje.my.domain> Organization: home Cc: Marc van Woerkom , ngr@symbionics.co.uk, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article you write: > > >On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Marc van Woerkom wrote: > >> > The ncr53c810 is not PCI2.1 compliant, which I have found to matter. > >Early 53C810 are PCI-2.0 compliant. Differences between PCI-2.1 and >PCI-2.0 should not explain 53C810 failures, on paper. However hardware has >issues as software and may-be some issue can be triggerred when >associating recent hardwares with old ones. And given the zero interest >in things that donnot give income in our world, such kind of problem will >for sure be ignored. Didn't the 53C810 have the problem that some of its controller instruction caused io cycles to appear on the bus that were in fact internal, violating the latest PCI standards? and only the later symbios' have replacements for these instructions that no longer do that... or was that something else that i remember? curious, -- Juergen Lock (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message