Subject: Re: pciide performance on alpha
To: None <port-alpha@netbsd.org>
From: Ross Harvey <ross@ghs.com>
List: port-alpha
Date: 08/12/1999 12:07:49
> From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:46:53 +0200
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr> 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 might be something similar here. Linux tends to rewrite everything, we
tend to rewrite nothing in the FW's domain. This guarantees that some
things will work better on one of the systems than the other.
ross.harvey@computer.org