From: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
To: Byron Stanoszek <gandalf@winds.org>
Cc: safemode <safemode@voicenet.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VT82C686A corruption with 2.4.x
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:51:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010201215116.A3239@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010201190653.H2341@suse.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102011316210.27273-100000@winds.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102011316210.27273-100000@winds.org>; from gandalf@winds.org on Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:46:08AM -0500, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, by bios does the same thing too on the Abit KT7(a).
> >
> > Ok, I'll remember this. This is most likely the cause of the problems
> > many people had with the KT7 in the past.
>
> What cause are you referring to? As far as I know, there are two options to
> increasing the FSB clock.. one increases both FSB+PCICLK, the other just
> increases FSB. If you increase the FSB only, it should keep PCICLK at a solid
> 33. (But I could be wrong, I've never tested that. I can tomorrow though.)
I mean that people can alter the PCI clock on these boards and that 33
doesn't to be always exactly 33 due to rounding errors if used with a
FSB other than 66 or 100 or 133.
Could it be that the PCI bus is not asynchronous, but only
pseudo-synchronous, allowing for divisors of 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2?
> > The U33 chips do UDMA timing in PCICLK (T = 30ns @ 33MHz) increments, U66 in
> > PCICLK*2 (T = 15ns @ 33 MHz) increments, and for U100 it's assumed that
> > there is an external 100MHz clock fed to the chip, so that the UDMA timing is
> > in T = 10ns increments independent of the PCICLK. I'm not 100% sure about
> > the last, it might be just PCICLK*3 (T = 10ns @ 33 MHz). An experiment needs
> > to be carried out to verify this.
>
> I don't have a KT7A personally, I only have a KT7. Can anyone else with a KT7A
> verify this? By verify, I take it you mean to use idebus=33 and overclock
> PCICLK? :) At least that would determine if UDMA100 is based on PCI or an
> external 100MHz source.
Actually he should use the correct idebus= so that the Active/Recover
timings are correct. If KT7A doesn't work with UDMA at high PCI clocks
*even when* idebus= is correct would mean that the UDMA timing is in
1/(PCICLK*3) units instead of units of 10ns.
Anyone help us?
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-01 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101301743180.30535-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
2001-01-31 1:18 ` VT82C686A corruption with 2.4.x David D.W. Downey
2001-01-31 2:04 ` David D.W. Downey
2001-01-31 7:36 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-01-31 7:55 ` David Raufeisen
2001-01-31 9:48 ` safemode
2001-01-31 11:43 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-01-31 12:54 ` Mark Hahn
2001-01-31 19:58 ` David Riley
2001-02-01 12:51 ` David D.W. Downey
2001-01-31 20:01 ` safemode
2001-01-31 22:04 ` Tobias Ringstrom
2001-01-31 22:40 ` safemode
2001-01-31 22:46 ` Alan Cox
2001-01-31 22:57 ` safemode
2001-02-01 6:31 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-02-01 0:46 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-02-01 1:52 ` safemode
2001-02-01 6:52 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-02-01 11:32 ` safemode
2001-02-01 16:46 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-02-01 18:06 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-02-01 18:20 ` Byron Stanoszek
2001-02-01 20:51 ` Vojtech Pavlik [this message]
2001-02-01 21:51 ` safemode
2001-02-01 21:56 ` Alan Chandler
2001-02-01 6:39 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-01-31 11:39 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-01-31 15:41 ` David D.W. Downey
2001-01-30 13:40 Nicholas Knight
2001-01-30 15:03 ` Tobias Ringstrom
2001-01-30 19:51 ` David D.W. Downey
2001-01-30 20:53 ` David Raufeisen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010201215116.A3239@suse.cz \
--to=vojtech@suse.cz \
--cc=gandalf@winds.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=safemode@voicenet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox