[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wakeup from a PCI device
- To: Mailing List Recipients <pci-sig-request@znyx.com>
- Subject: Re: Wakeup from a PCI device
- From: "David O'Shea" <daveo@corollary.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:54:20 -0700
- Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:54:20 -0700
- Resent-From: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <"ITPMe1.0.3C2.uUY4o"@dart>
- Resent-Sender: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
Bruce,
Is this a new pin to be defined on the existing connector?
At 10:25 AM 8/14/96 PDT, Bruce Young wrote:
> So what do you think? Is this a non-issue that everyone agrees a
> separate pin for wakeup is a good idea? Or is everyone dead-set
> against adding a pin on principle!?
>
> -Bruce Young, Intel Corporation
> PCI SIG Power Management Working Group Chairman
What is the impact on the PCI add-in connector? Is the new pin defined
as a position on the add-in connector? If it is not, then it prevents
any add-in cards from making use of the new pin signalling method. I
think that shutting out the add-in board people from the Sleep wakeup
mechanism would not please them.
In server machines, the disk array controllers would want to be able to
use sleep mode signalling in addition to Network and COM devices. Most
really high-end (Server level) controllers are not built into the system,
meaning they plug into a PCI connector. If the connector does not have
the new pin definition then I think that is a really BIG negative.
-David O'Shea
Corollary Inc.
daveo@corollary.com
1 ü ê