Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #153Re: PCI compatibility of BusLogic's BT946C SCSI Adapter
From: Rhia
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 07:54
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 07:54
21 lines
1563 bytes
1563 bytes
In article <31421F46.3AFC@baldcom.net> Steven Hoke <shoke@baldcom.net> writes: >Leonard N. Zubkoff wrote: >> >> I know that on some DOS-based PCI Pentiums, rev C of the BT946C has >> problems; revs D, E & F are supposedly o.k. >> >> Actually, I believe revs C - F are all identical in their PCI compatibility >> assuming they have the latest firmware. The Rev C card had SCSI problems >> with a few devices. > > I wasn't even aware that there was an F revision of the BT946C. Any idea > what was changed on that from the E to the F revision? They removed the third (bios) socket, which was functionally unused in Revs C-E, and was actually left empty in D and E, when they redid the circuit board layout. Ever since Rev C, the bios and firmware were contained within the odd/even firmware pair, so there wasn't any need to keep the third socket. Rhia
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4hu1r9$uk@kelewan.dandelion.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!dandelion.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<Dn92LB.Cn@daneb.ping.de> <4h6air$l6h@caladan.restena.lu> <313C48EE.2CCF6F3A@tomserver.phys.ttu.edu> <4hslfi$90m@mirage.skypoint.com> <4hsr1p$5tp@kelewan.dandelion.com> <31421F46.3AFC@baldcom.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!dandelion.com!not-for-mail From: "Rhia" <rhiannon@dandelion.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.periphs.scsi Subject: Re: PCI compatibility of BusLogic's BT946C SCSI Adapter Date: 9 Mar 1996 23:54:17 -0800 Organization: Dandelion Digital Sender: rhiannon@dandelion.com Message-ID: <4hu1r9$uk@kelewan.dandelion.com> References: <Dn92LB.Cn@daneb.ping.de> <4h6air$l6h@caladan.restena.lu> <313C48EE.2CCF6F3A@tomserver.phys.ttu.edu> <4hslfi$90m@mirage.skypoint.com> <4hsr1p$5tp@kelewan.dandelion.com> <31421F46.3AFC@baldcom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dandelion.com NNTP-Posting-User: root In-reply-to: Steven Hoke's message of Sat, 09 Mar 1996 19:16:06 -0500