This message is from the T13 list server.
Michael,
Please show me how the look at PHY registers is reported. Next regardless
of it reports to go look, if they are not present it is a bait and switch.
Recall Eddie Murphy's "Ice Cream" segment in is route's.
"Want'a Lick (look)?, PSYCH!"
Michael, I clearly stated it would work in the short, so we agree it works.
I also stated that SATA 1.0 requires PHY. Please look at plain-jane
SATA-1.0-GOLD starting on page 262. How is one expected to deal with SS,
SC, and SE registers in a legacy driver which was stated from the onset to
be backwards compatable?
I want to be perfectly lazy and get this right/correct the first time.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Eschmann, Michael K wrote:
> This message is from the T13 list server.
>
>
> Andre, I don't agree with you. A SATA device agregates the link/phy errors
> into the task file error register and set the status error bit. If a host
> wants to know more about the nature of the link errors, then the phy
> registers would be nice, but in no way required. So I say "Whaaaay Jack"!
> MKE.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Hedrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:40 PM
> To: Gana Pat
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [t13] SATA
>
>
> This message is from the T13 list server.
>
>
>
> Well first off the most basic kludges to make SATA work use an add-a-chip
> to PATA. Since SATA 1.0 specifies and requires the issue of SATA/PHY MIB
> registers, the kludges fail to properly support the transport layer.
>
> Now this means, the HBA has no clue how to test if the device interrupt or
> if the PHY interrupt was generated and any recovery path for the HOST
> driver is not possible! This really stinks.
>
> Now the complete proper solution HBA can still suffer from the brain death
> of the add-a-chip, if they do not have proper HOST drivers's to use the
> extented SATA registers. Yet if the HOST's driver is that broken, then it
> deserves to die and lockup.
>
> So have fun playing with the new toys and remember that intq is not just a
> device anymore.
>
> So in short, the answer is YES. SATA 1.0 is/should be compatable with
> PATA. The long version is no way jack :-(.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Gana Pat wrote:
>
> > Hi ,
> > Can I discuss regarding Serial ATA here ?
> >
> > If yes here goes my questions.
> >
> > I heard that the SATA is software compatible with Parallel ATA. But how
> far it holds good in terms of devices per channel (port) ? I heard that they
> are also working on the Hubs with which you can connect more devices per
> channel. Is this true ?
> >
> > Anyone knows any info on this ?
> >
> > Your help is highly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gana
> >
>
