RE: PC bios recognizing PCI card

["Tisani, Mohamad" <MTisani@pericom.com>]

Thank you for your comments on this issue 

It seems to me that the BIOS in the system should be responsible of Counting
2^^25 clocks before starting to configure the PCI Busses 

Therefore it should not be a PCI chip's responsibility to ignore all PCI
Cycles before the 2 ^^25 clocks before accepting cycles 

for example I know that the latest 21150 and 21154 bridge from Intel they
say that are 2.2 Compliant but they do accept Config cycles after 16 clocks
.

I am not a BIOS expert , is the above correct or not ?



Regards,
-----------------------------------------
Mohamad Tisani                            Tel    :  (408) 435 0800   x347
                                                  
Director, Application Engineering   Fax  :  (408) 435 1100              
Pericom Semiconductor Corp.       Email: mtisani@pericom.com
2380 Bering Dr 
San Jose, Ca 95131                                   www.Pericom.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Walter [mailto:rwalter@brocade.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:19 PM
To: 'Austin Franklin'; PCI SIG Mailing List
Subject: RE: PC bios recognizing PCI card



> >
> > > There is nothing in the PCI spec (2.1 at least) for
> > > how long a card has to become "configured", per se...
> >
> > PCI 2.2, table 4-6, page 128, line 13:
> > Trhfa - RST# High to First configuration Access - 2^25 clocks.
> >
> > PCI 2.2, section 4.3.2, page 134-135 talks about Reset & Trhfa.
>
> Right, and that's why I qualified it with 2.1 (I pushed for that to be
> spec'd BTW, because of this very issue of FPGAs and FPGA
> configuration)...since there are millions and millions of 2.1 spec'd
> motherboards out there that most of these boards must be made to work
> with...it's a good idea to pay attention to the fact it wasn't spec'd in
2.1
> and earlier...and some "older" system board don't meet that spec.
>
> Austin

Ooops.  I was writing this right before I had to run to a meeting and hit
send without finishing my thoughts.  I had left Austin's "(2.1 at least)"
part in the quote because he is correct that this is a new requirement of
2.2.

My intent was not to be critical of Austin's comments but to add more
details to it.  I appologize if my incomplete thought might have left any
other impression.

For the record, I agree with both of Austins' posts in this thread so far.

Sincerely,

-Richard Walter
Note: I speak for myself, not for Brocade Communications.