can someone confirm that the BH6 is NOT OCI 2.2 and CUSL2C *is*

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugh Jass
  • Start date Start date
H

Hugh Jass

I'm pretty sure BH6 not because of its age, but I'd like to eliminate
this as a cause for problems. I believe I saw CUSL2C is.

I have several older boards in service in linux boxes (and in the "junk
box") and I need to reshuffle 'em. Thanks
 
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:55:07 +0100, Hugh Jass wrote:

Thab's PCI 2.2 of course, bad typing
 
Try the Abit forums, the BH6 I am familiar with is an Abit product.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
| I'm pretty sure BH6 not because of its age, but I'd like to
eliminate
| this as a cause for problems. I believe I saw CUSL2C is.
|
| I have several older boards in service in linux boxes (and in the
"junk
| box") and I need to reshuffle 'em. Thanks
 
Hugh said:
I'm pretty sure BH6 not because of its age, but I'd like to eliminate
this as a cause for problems. I believe I saw CUSL2C is.

I have several older boards in service in linux boxes (and in the "junk
box") and I need to reshuffle 'em. Thanks
Click to expand...

The BH6 uses the PIIX4E southbridge (82371EB IIRC) which is PCI 2.1
compliant only.
The CUSL2C uses the 82801xx series ICH which is PCI 2.2 compliant.
Notice that it's the *chips* and not the board that defines PCI revision
compliance.
Since PCI 2.2 only brings some extra power management capability to the
PCI bus (wake up etc) over PCI 2.1, I doubt lack of PCI 2.2 support
would account for any problems. PCI 2.2 cards will work fine in PCI 2.1
systems, but will not be able to wake up the motherboard via the
assigned PCI slot pin should you need such capabilities. Traditional
wake-up methods such as via WOL and WOM headers can of course be used,
these have nothing to do with the PCI bus.
Also, in theory the BH6 could behave in a PCI 2.2 compliant way if
additional circuitry took control of the missing features of the chipset
(monitoring the relevant PCI pins and providing power to the PCI bus
etc) and of course the CUSL2 could be crippled to behave like PCI 2.1
only if the manufacturer chose not to wire the extra chipset
functionality. But I doubt any manufacturer took any such design
deviations, so in practice chipset compliance level equals motherboard
compliance level.

Regards
Nikos
 
The BH6 uses the PIIX4E southbridge (82371EB IIRC) which is PCI 2.1
compliant only. Ok.
The CUSL2C uses the 82801xx series ICH which is PCI 2.2 compliant.
Notice that it's the *chips* and not the board that defines PCI revision
compliance. Noted.
Since PCI 2.2 only brings some extra power management capability to the
Click to expand...
deviations, so in practice chipset compliance level equals
motherboard
compliance level.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the complete answer. I have a PCI card that, it turns out,
requires PCI 2.2 to work, it is not detected by the BH6 at all at the BIOS
level.

Knowing that my CUSL2 is getting a little long in the tooth, I though I
might upgrade it and if it is PCI 2.2 compat (ok, if the chipset is) then
it can retire to an esy job in my linux SIP server which needs that PCI
2.2 stuff.

I really appreciate people who give an answer when they know it, thanks
again.
 
Hugh Jass wrote:

(snip)
Thanks for the complete answer. I have a PCI card that, it turns out,
requires PCI 2.2 to work, it is not detected by the BH6 at all at the BIOS
level.
Click to expand...

What card is it exactly?

(snip)

Regards
Nikos
 
Back
Top