FW: BIOS Behavior Under PCI 2.1 Spec.

[Mike Flora <mikefl@MICROSOFT.com>]

The ROM header should synch with the Vendor ID/Device ID.  The SubVendor
ID/SubDevice ID is to identify the driver, not the ROM.

	Mike Flora
	Microsoft
	-----Original Message-----
	From:	YVazir@corp.adaptec.com [SMTP:YVazir@corp.adaptec.com]
<mailto:>
	Sent:	Wednesday, April 16, 1997 7:05 AM
	To:	Mailing List Recipients
	Cc:	SKY@corp.adaptec.com
	Subject:	BIOS Behavior Under PCI 2.1 Spec.

	Form: Adaptec Memo
	Header: Adaptec Confidential
	Text: (18 lines follow)
	Can anybody comment on the following?

	To be both PCI 2.1 and PC '97 compliant should the expansion ROM
BIOS header correspond to the Sub-system vendor ID/Device ID or the
Vendor ID/Device ID?
	The Sub-system Vendor ID/Device ID is optional in PCI 2.1 spec
while it is a requirement for PC '97 certification.  If a vendor wants
to load a different set of Expansion ROM and Device driver for a given
device then it seems one either has to change the Device ID field or the
Sub-system Device ID field or both.
	If the Expansion ROM header corresponds to the sub-system device
ID then compatibility is lost with all legacy systems that have BIOSes
that check the header against the device ID field.  Since this is too
much too give up I guess the system BIOS should continue to check the
header against Device ID field and NOT use sub-system Device ID field.
So if a vendor desires to load a different expansion ROM then it must
change the Device ID field. Am I correct to assume this?
	Use Proportional Font: true
	Attachment Count: 0
*	$----Novell-Attachment----$

		X-NVL-Content-Type: UNKNOWN
		X-NVL-Content-Typename: UNKNOWN
		X-NVL-Content-Charset: X-IBM-437
		X-NVL-Content-Filename: ATTRIBS.BND
		X-NVL-Content-Transfer-Encoding: X-UUENCODE


	--$----Novell-Attachment----$-- << File: ATTRIBS.BND >> 
IÔÃ