[comp.unix.microport] Perstor PS180-16F

mark@mamab.UUCP (Mark Woodruff) (01/16/89)

Does anyone know if System V/AT supports the Perstor 16 bit hard disk/floppy 
controller?  The Perstor normally formats to 31 sectors per track, 
which V/AT can't handle, but it is also (supposedly) register-level 
compatible with the WD1003-WA2 controller.
 
mark 


---
 * Origin: MaMaB--the Machine in Mark's Bedroom *HST* (Opus 1:363/9)

ken@uport.UUCP (Ken Chapin) (01/19/89)

In article <1189.23D1A29A@mamab.UUCP> mark@mamab.UUCP (Mark Woodruff) writes:
>Does anyone know if System V/AT supports the Perstor 16 bit hard disk/floppy 
>controller?  The Perstor normally formats to 31 sectors per track, 
>which V/AT can't handle, but it is also (supposedly) register-level 
>compatible with the WD1003-WA2 controller.
> 

V/AT Ver. 2.4 has a limit of 64 sectors/track hard coded into it. I thought
that the Perstor required that you set your drive type to 0 in CMOS. If that
is the case then V/AT will assume that no drive is installed. If that is not the
case and the controller is register level compatible with the WD1003 then there 
is no reason for it not to work.

Ken Chapin         UUCP: ...!{sun | ucbvax | ihnp4}!amdcad!uport!ken
Microport Systems
Technical Support         

nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn) (01/22/89)

In article <298@uport.UUCP> ken@uport.UUCP (Ken Chapin) writes:
>In article <1189.23D1A29A@mamab.UUCP> mark@mamab.UUCP (Mark Woodruff) writes:
>>Does anyone know if System V/AT supports the Perstor 16 bit hard disk/floppy 
>>controller?  The Perstor normally formats to 31 sectors per track, 
>>which V/AT can't handle, but it is also (supposedly) register-level 
>>compatible with the WD1003-WA2 controller.
>> 
>
>V/AT Ver. 2.4 has a limit of 64 sectors/track hard coded into it. I thought
>that the Perstor required that you set your drive type to 0 in CMOS. If that
>is the case then V/AT will assume that no drive is installed...

I have discussed this with Perstor. They do indeed require that
drive type be set to 0. I gather that this is done to force
use of ROM code on the controller board.  While this is said
to be AT standard, it is not compatible with unix as it causes
bypassing of the unix drivers and other software troubles that
I no longer recall.



-- 
Norman Kohn   (...ddsw1!nvk!norman)
eves: 373-0564
days/ans svc: 650-6840