Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:34:28 -0600 From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM (Ron G. Minnich), deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I2O only available under NDA? Message-ID: <199707120434.WAA10483@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:18:13 %2B0930." <199707120148.LAA27296@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
> One has to ask "how?". It strikes me that the extra software layers
> and the implicit serialisation involved in using a coprocessor will
> only _worsen_ the overall performance of the system. What I _don't_
> see in their architecture are things like extra buffering DMA
> controllers, a decent PIC, etc., all of which would help drag the PC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought I saw somewhere that the i960 uses the APIC. As someone who has
been programming the APIC extensively, I wouldn't call it 'great' (or even
'good' based on my problems this week...), it is definatley better than the
8259 PIC nonsense... Having said this, I would like to be on record as NOT
supporting the I20 NDA pucky.
--
Steve Passe | powered by
smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707120434.WAA10483>