• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

386 computer, XT-IDE BIOS, can't find IDE address?

R

RWIndiana

Experienced Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
52
Hi all. I have a 386 that I'm trying to get up and running. XUB works in the original 8-bit card, but when I move the drive (in this case a IDE to SD card adapter) to the 16-bit card (SIIG si-1132), and reflash the Rom with the AT settings and typical IDE base addresses, I can't seem to get it to recognize the drive. Is there a way to detect what base address the IDE interface is on, on the 16-bit card?
 
Also, if you need the XUB to control a different type of controller, you need to change the controller/device setting in the XUB. Example screen shot at [here].

But a question is, why do you need the XUB to control the SI-1132? The SI-1132 is a controller designed for AT-class systems. In your 386, why can't you just attach the {IDE-to-SD adapter + SD} combination to the SI-1132, then set up the drive type in the CMOS SETUP, then possibly redo the partitioning and high-level format?
 
Makefile said:
Looks like on the SI-1132+ (perhaps the same?) IDE has to be primary (1f0), secondary (170), or disabled: https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manuals/SIIG/SIIG SI-1132+ Users Manual.pdf

Perhaps make sure it isn't disabled? And that there isn't anything else conflicting like onboard IDE, or an MFM controller card.
Click to expand...
I will tinker with it more tomorrow and report back. Yes I think it's the same card. All the jumpers look to be at default settings. I know it works when used without the XUB, with system BIOS. Perhaps the XUB didn't like the SD card? I will try other drives tomorrow as well.
modem7 said:
Also, if you need the XUB to control a different type of controller, you need to change the controller/device setting in the XUB. Example screen shot at [here].

But a question is, why do you need the XUB to control the SI-1132? The SI-1132 is a controller designed for AT-class systems. In your 386, why can't you just attach the {IDE-to-SD adapter + SD} combination to the SI-1132, then set up the drive type in the CMOS SETUP, then possibly redo the partitioning and high-level format?
Click to expand...

I am considering this, but I seem to be limited in sizes of drives I can choose in BIOS. I don't feel confident with setting parameters manually, but maybe I will play around with it.

On the XUB front, it was my fault for not trying other drives. The siig was not playing nice with the Sd card, so I'm not sure what's going on there, or why it works in XT mode on the XT-IDE. 1F0h is the correct address for the siig.
 
One last question... As my 386 BIOS is limited to a 500mb hard drive, would it be preferable to use OnTrack to see the whole (4.3GiB in this case) drive, or stick the XUB into the system somewhere? I'm leaning towards XUB still, maybe because that seems easier.
Pros/Cons?

Thanks!
 
RWIndiana said:
One last question... As my 386 BIOS is limited to a 500mb hard drive, would it be preferable to use OnTrack to see the whole (4.3GiB in this case) drive, or stick the XUB into the system somewhere? I'm leaning towards XUB still, maybe because that seems easier.
Pros/Cons?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
OnTrack will cost you some conventional memory and can make it awkward to read the drive if you move it to another machine to read it (such as your "bridge" machine loading files onto it). You also have to set your boot order to "C: then A:" so that the OnTrack MBR always loads first, and then gives you a chance to boot from floppy, as booting directly from floppy will make the C: drive invisible.

XT-IDE Unversal BIOS takes up upper memory address space, costing you some UMBs if you are going to run EMM386 and DOS=UMB. Or in other words, less memory will be available for you to DEVICEHIGH/LOADHIGH things into. Also, if your BIOS doesn't support shadowing arbitrary option ROMs (as opposed to system and video BIOS only) XT-IDE Universal BIOS will execute slowly.

On my 386 machines I choose to just live with the 504MB limit, as it's roomy enough, and it doesn't hurt anything to use a larger drive and treat it as 504.

Assuming you are using the FAT16 file system, your partitions are limited to 2GB, and large FAT16 partitions become quite inefficient. For 1GB-2GB partitions, space is allocated in 32KB chunks, so there is a lot of waste. With a 504MB partition, space is allocated in 8KB chunks.
 
Thank you for your thoughts. Makes sense. I will go with the 504MB and see how it goes!
 
These points are all valid as long as the system BIOS can reliably drive the IDE device, which may not be true on old mainboards and new drives. In particular, I've had issues with CF cards which went away when I switched to XUB.

Regarding the "XUB will execute slow if your system cannot shadow arbitrary ROMs" - isn't that something a memory manager such as EMM386 or QEMM can do? In that case, XUB will likely outperform the system BIOS as well.
 
Svenska said:
These points are all valid as long as the system BIOS can reliably drive the IDE device, which may not be true on old mainboards and new drives. In particular, I've had issues with CF cards which went away when I switched to XUB.

Regarding the "XUB will execute slow if your system cannot shadow arbitrary ROMs" - isn't that something a memory manager such as EMM386 or QEMM can do? In that case, XUB will likely outperform the system BIOS as well.
Click to expand...

What issues did you have using the system Bios? I just got a Dell 486sx computer and I'm having problems with data corruption swapping the hard drive between the 486 and a modern computer to copy files. So I'd like to try and use the XUB, however it does not see the drive at 1F0h. The HDD controller is on-board, so I'm not sure that the address is correct. Any ideas would be appreciated!
 
RWIndiana said:
What issues did you have using the system Bios?
Click to expand...
Random data corruption, more likely to happen when copying files over the network (mTCP's FTPSRV). Eventually figured it out by running md5sum on the source files, copying them over and verifying the checksum on the AT clone. Also happened when copying from floppy (but less likely).

I don't think that a 486 system would suffer from the type of corruption I've seen; it's more a 286/early 386 problem.

RWIndiana said:
I just got a Dell 486sx computer and I'm having problems with data corruption swapping the hard drive between the 486 and a modern computer to copy files. So I'd like to try and use the XUB, however it does not see the drive at 1F0h. The HDD controller is on-board, so I'm not sure that the address is correct. Any ideas would be appreciated!
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. Are you still trying to use an SD-to-IDE adapter using the mainboard IDE port?

Is the IDE interface configured as primary (base address 0x1F0) or seconday (0x170)?
Does the system BIOS detect the drive?
Does the drive work in a different machine?
Did you try different drives / cards / adapters?
Is the drive configured as master or single drive (some adapters have jumpers)?
Is XUB configured to look at the correct IDE address, and using the correct type?

You can try to read the IDE status register (0x1F7 or 0x177) in DEBUG.
It should not return 0xFF ("no IDE interface") or 0x7F ("no drive").
 
Svenska said:
Please elaborate. Are you still trying to use an SD-to-IDE adapter using the mainboard IDE port?

Is the IDE interface configured as primary (base address 0x1F0) or seconday (0x170)?
Does the system BIOS detect the drive?
Does the drive work in a different machine?
Did you try different drives / cards / adapters?
Is the drive configured as master or single drive (some adapters have jumpers)?
Is XUB configured to look at the correct IDE address, and using the correct type?

You can try to read the IDE status register (0x1F7 or 0x177) in DEBUG.
It should not return 0xFF ("no IDE interface") or 0x7F ("no drive").
Click to expand...
No, right now I'm just trying to use a normal IDE hard drive on the onboard IDE.
System BIOS does detect hard drives, but it is limited to 504mb (type 41). Auto-detect usually doesn't work for larger drives.
All the drives I've tested do work in other machines.
I tried plugging in a different IDE adapter card I had laying around, and that seemed to make XUB hang for a bit, then still say drive not found. I wonder if I need to disable the onboard IDE?
As far as XUB config, I attempted the "autoconfigure" and it said it found 1 controller, and set the address as 1F0h. So that should be right, I guess? But still no luck detecting any drives.

It's been a bit since I've used Debug, could you help me out with the syntax? Sorry :(
 
If your system BIOS detects the drive correctly (albeit at 504 MB), you don't have to deal with a hardware problem. No need to invoke DEBUG (the syntax would be "i 1f7" or "i 177").

You cannot just plug in two IDE adapters at the same address. They will conflict with each other.

Have you tried a different drive with XUB?

So you either have XUB configured incorrectly, or your drive doesn't want to play with it, or your copy of XUB is broken / old / buggy.
 
Sorry for the trouble. I had tried several drives with none of them working, but it just so happened that all three did not want to work with the XUB. Finally found one that does. Sigh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top