Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Future Domain SCSI controller for AT bus
Keywords: A friend of mine and I are looking for a '386 replacement
Message-ID: <2008@spdcc.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 88 01:21:33 GMT
References: <522@m3.mfci.UUCP> <1996@spdcc.COM> <213@ispi.UUCP>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 21

In article <213@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (id for use with uunet/usenet) writes:
>The problem is not Xenix, but the way IBM designed the AT.  What happens
>is that most controllers use the same interrupt.  The AT cannot support
>multiple devices with the same interrupt.  Also, they both might be using
>the same address space.  Either or both of these situations will cause 
>problems.  Perhaps some of the hardware types will be able to shed some
>more light on the matter.

Neither is the problem.  The IRQ is settable (3 or 5, neither of which
is used by the AT disk controller), as is the starting address for the
PROM and RAM space.  There are no conflicts necessary between the standard
AT hard/floppy disk controller and the Future Domain 830 SCSI controller.
The problem undoubtedly resides in the software design of systems earlier
than XENIX 2.3.  I believe that Future Domain is working on a version of
their driver which will work under XENIX 2.3.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer