[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PCI cards on Ultra5

Admar Schoonen wrote:

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:59:19PM +0200, Christian Euler wrote:
Hi Geert,

Is there anything special about PCI support on UltraSparc?
Not as far I known.

I think the original poster is encountering hardware defects.

Hardware test to preform:
* place a known to be working PCI (Network) card in the Ultra 5

* place the PCI USB card in known to be working PCI slot.
I ripped the USB card off my wife's PC (where it was working fine).
I also tried other cards on the Ultra, without success.

The machine itself runs pretty stable, I used it for about 8 hours yesterday
without any glitches. So I don't want to talk about a hardware problem yet. ;)

There are various success and fail stories of putting USB PCI cards in Ultra
5's. I once heard that U5's only like PCI 2.1 cards and not 2.2 (see e.g.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2007/12/msg00012.html). Don't know if it's

You might try a different USB card.



My recollection of the previous discussion was that some cards, believed to be PCI 2.2, locked up a PCI-Based SPARC system (possibly an Ultra-5) without any detectable activity. It was surmised that the SPARC system was compatible with PCI 2.1 but not with 2.2.

Having recently had a very similar problem on some Compaq x86 systems with much-newer PCI USB cards fitted, i.e. the computer was either dead or booted a small number of times and then died, I believe that PCI compatibility might be a major issue.

However the OP (Christian) did have a system that ran, so it might in practice be the usual sort of driver problem rather than a fundamental incompatibility.

My advice would be to keep an eye on eBay looking for older/slower USB cards, i.e. /not/ 480Mbit/sec v2. I know it shouldn't happen but in my experience peripherals always work best with machines roughly comparable with what was current when they were designed and tested.

Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

Reply to: