From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sammy.varisys.co.uk (secure.varisys.co.uk [81.187.198.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9B8679E1 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:55:23 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <43ECCB4D.9080602@varisys.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:20:13 +0000 From: Andrew Armitage MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Hawkins Subject: Re: Yosemite/440EP 'issues' as a PCI target References: <20060209003459.0ED30352564@atlas.denx.de> <43EBD715.4020303@ovro.caltech.edu> <200602100847.54363.sr@denx.de> <43ECC7CE.1010409@ovro.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <43ECC7CE.1010409@ovro.caltech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi David, > However, given the meager host-to-host communications > features, I think I would be better off putting an > Intel 21555 non-transparent bridge on the board. > That will provide 5V tolerance, and a full set of > messaging unit and I2O facilities. All for $50-80 > or so according to the single-piece pricing from > Digikey. I'm not so happy to need to add another > chip, but if the 440EP passes all the other > benchmark requirements, then it seems the least > painful way to proceed. > > Has anyone reading this list had good or bad experiences > with the Intel 21555 or perhaps some of the PLX offers, > eg. PCI 6254? We've used the 21555 on a couple of our designs (mated to a 7457/107 pair) and have never had too many problems with them. The messaging unit has been very helpful. Just my $0.02, Andrew