[Unmoderated] ArticiaS: mystery finaly solved ? | ANN.lu |
Posted on 08-Jul-2004 06:47 GMT by brotheris | 140 comments View flat View list |
Here's the summary of the last posts from hot topic. It may finaly put some dots on I's. Up to now we have heared a lot of small bits from variuos parties and finaly we can put the puzzle together. Read more about it.
I'll play Amon_Re of the past:
It all started when Chris Hogdes started explaining few things (in this thread and @226 comment).
During DMA transfers, the ArticiaS does not flag accessed memory as "dirty", therefore the CPU does not automatically know, that it has to update/flush its caches
Later (@ comment 247, 248 and others) Bernie Meyer explained how such a lack of feature (or call it a bug) affects stability, performance and may cause data corruption even in AmigaOS-like enviroment while using CachePreDMA()/CachePostDMA().
And then we discover quotes from ArticiaS documentation:
"The snoop cycle is used to probe the primary and secondary cache for updated data when the PCI
accesses DRAM. This is done to maintain data coherency between the Floating Buffer, DRAM and both
caches. The Articia S performs the Snoop cycle. When there is a snoop hit on a modified cache line in
either level one or two cache, the contents are written back directly to the Floating Buffer. A PCI Bus
master can subsequently later on fetch the data directly from the Floating Buffer. The Floating Buffer is
flushed back to DRAM during a PCI write cycle. The corresponding line in level one or level two cache is
thus invalidated. Snoops are hidden, meaning the CPU can continue its current data access without
being interrupted while the Articia S simultaneously queries both caches."
You can find similar information using google cache. It seems like some people lied. Is lack of Cache Coherency a bug or a feature (it was advertised that there is Cache Coherency, so it had to work) ? We may now put this case to rest.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
ArticiaS: mystery finaly solved ? : Comment 112 of 140 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 11-Jul-2004 16:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 109 (Johan Rönnblom): >> I mean, if there really is such fault in the hardware, why not help
>> MAI solve it?
>
>They offered to help, Gerald staid for weeks working with MAI's
>engineers, but in the end MAI weren't very cooperative.
How do you know that it was MAI that refused to cooperate? AFAIK, bPlan refused to tell MAI what their "fix" (AKA "April") actually "fixed".
>Let's face it Sammy, it's not like either bPlan or Tratech were
>neutral on this issue. They *relied* on MAI. They had invested a lot
>of time and effort in a product based on their chips. They didn't want
>to find bugs in them. But despite this, they did - at great expense
>for themselves.
Instead of cooperating, bPlan/Genesi chose another provider and made use of the opportunity to slander their competitor's chipset provider in public. Hyperion and Eyetech decided to continue cooperating, and still do today, completely without conflicts. These are the facts known to us today.
>> First of all, you are not the one to turn to for recommendations
>> about the AmigaOne to begin with, period.
>
>Why not? Who is the one to turn to, then?
You're obviously biased. I mean, why would anyone ever insist on making claims and "recommendations" without facts to back it up if it's not because you have a motive for doing so?
>I think I'm fairly neutral on this issue, let's compare the parties
>involved:
>
>Genesi: I've done business with them, or rather with Thendic France,
>but unfortunately it turned sour, as after the bankruptcy I didn't get
>the money we had agreed upon. I have never bought a product by them.
>bPlan: No business or customer relation. Eyetech: No business or
>customer relation. MAI: No business or customer relation.
>Hyperion: I've bought a couple of their games.
You don't need to be neutral, you need to be *objective*. The difference is that instead of speculating, you stick to what we know as a matter of fact. If you do so, it's completely irrelevant if you're associated with one of the parties involved or not. See?
>So yes, I think I'm perfectly able to form my opinion solely on the
>merits of the respective products here. Also, note that I'm not saying
>that no one should buy an A1.
You are of course free to have any kind of opinion you like. However, making claims and accusations is a completely different story.
>About making claims about bugs in the Pegasos computers, of course,
>please go ahead. If you do know something, tell us. I'm quite sure
>that most Pegasos users would be quite interested, at least that's my
>experience thus far when problems have been found.
Well, I don't see the point in degrading myself to your level. That would make me quite a hypocrite, now wouldn't it? |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|