Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!arktouros!dyer
From: dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (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: <7506@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 88 03:45:14 GMT
References: <522@m3.mfci.UUCP> <1996@spdcc.COM> <213@ispi.UUCP> <2008@spdcc.COM> <122@ecicrl.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer)
Organization: MIT Project Athena, Cambridge MA 02139
Lines: 25

In article <122@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>Neither is the problem.  The IRQ is settable (3 or 5, neither of which
>>is used by the AT disk controller), 
>You're right - the 830 doesn't clash with the AT disk controller - it
>clashes with COM2 (3) or LPT2 (5) respectively.  Therefore, you have to
>somehow disable one or the other in Xenix.
>It *is* possible to run two devices on the same interrupts, but it
>requires a little robustness from the two drivers, sometimes a little...

This is *NOT* the issue here.  If you don't have COM2 or LPT2
there is no problem.  The problem is that XENIX for XENIX < 2.3
*still* won't work if you expect to use both the AT controller and the 830
together, assuming the stock AT disk driver controlling two
ST506 drives (and on which reside your root and swap), plus
adding SCSI disks using the Corollary FD 830 disk driver.
We are discussing a software deficiency, not interrupt conflicts.

There is no reason a-priori this should fail, since UNIX in
general is happy to support multiple block devices on which will
be contained file systems.

---
Steve Dyer
dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer