On Thu, Jun 28 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
Because 8020 is _old and dated_, yet some manufacturers still base new
devices on it. That is what is broken, clearly noone is faulting a '96
device for being based on SFF-8020, however a '09 and '01 is
I should have known that you (instructor of the current and previous
maintainer) would have the answer off the top ;-)
Therefore by your description it mys be set always but I guess it is a
DGD; however, I do want to know that it is now.
Oh, and now that Big Drive Technology has been annouced I
Okay my bad it is ATA-1 but even that does not explain the bit.
only that section 7.2.6 top of page 14 (index numbers) defines it to be
set to 1 with out a reason.
This this is a pre-ATA thing back in IDE.
If you really want to know the answer I can go dig it up, but later.
Cheers,
Andre Hed
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you cannot
> get rid of :-(
in ANSI X3.279-1996, "AT Attachment Interface with Extensions (ATA-2)",
Approved September 11, 1996 , control register bit 3-7 are reserved.
However ANSI X3.2
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
> get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
> This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
> silly! I hope you agree to that point.
No,
in A
That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
silly! I hope you agree to that point.
This is the drive->ctrl register pointe
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
> Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
...
> Not all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
> rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
>
Thanks for pointi
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
> still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
> the subsystem three plus years ago.
>
>
From: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
the subsystem three plus years ago.
Hi Andre -
Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
T
Gunther,
It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
Also look closely
No all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
static int try_to_iden
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> PARANIOA.
This is not a valid reason.
This clearly fixes a bug in linux. Note: the irq disable
is local to ide-cs. Are you paranoid enough to believe
enabling the irq by writing globally to the control register that
existed since ATA will have ill effects?
You claim t
PARANIOA.
Remember that ATAPI is generally screwed beyond reality, so adjusting the
probe code in general (global) is a bad thing.
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
-
ASL, Inc.
> obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
> there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
> driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
> interrupt we can handle the execption, but you do not go around blanket
It should be all devices that do not claim ATA-4/5 support.
I have to go back and look to see what the cut-off was that CFA agreed to
move forward off the dead docs.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
--
Alan,
It is an issue that we have been trying to get fixed, and only after
obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
int
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
> people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
See Alan's point about existing hardware.
>
> That device is enabling (with its ablity to ass
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 12:29:47AM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
> people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
>
> That device is enabling with its ablity to assert
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
ATA-2 may be obsolete but existing ATA-2 hardware doesnt spontaenously
combust when the spec changes (much Im sure to some vendors dissappointmnent)
-
To
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
That device is enabling with its ablity to assert its device->host
interrupt regardless of the HOST...that is a bad device.
19 matches
Mail list logo
