If that's the way you want them, yes. You can do it either
way though, either drive can be master providing there is no
odd incompatibility or bug... in other words, this is
generally true but YMMV.
I recommend you put the DVD burner as secondary master. Although you
would think there should be no problems, I recently found that my NEC
3540 was not properly recognized by the BIOS when it was a slave. Now
that it is master, I have had absolutely no problems with it.
Maybe someday someone can explain why this happens, because I ran into
it back in 1999 with a Mitsumi CD-RW that would not work as slave. The
factory told me I had to make it master which I did and then it
worked. I thought it was just a quirk of the Mitsumi driver but now
that the same kind of thing happened with my NEC 3540, I believe there
is something going on that we are not aware of.
One possibility is that when the BIOS queries the device, it waits for
a short time and moves on. If the DVD burner is slow in responding,
then when it is a slave, the BIOS has finished its query and never
finds out what the unit has to say. Perhaps the wait time is longer
for the master query and that's why the BIOS finds out about the unit.
My Phoenix Award BIOS is in a very big hurry to move on once it has
queried the secondary slave. In fact I have to hit the Pause key to
halt the computer so I can study the screen printout. So it is
possible that the secondary slave query is too impatient for the
slow-responding NEV 3540, especially since I am using patched f/w.
I noticed this problem got a whole lot worse after I patched the f/w.
Assuming this new f/w is "slower" to respond, then that would be
consistent with having to put the 3540 on the secondary master. No big
deal, there is nothing inferior with the secondary slave, only the
BIOS is too fast when making a query.
Unless you absolutely must put the DVD birner somewhere else, I
recommend you make it the secondary master and play it safe.