This message is from the T13 list server.
Hale,
As you can see from my later email, the term "properly" is the point of debate.
The question is really, "should we only use EXT commands if 48-bit support is set
regardless of the capacity of the device?". Some say "Yes" some say "No".
gkl
-----Original Message-----
From: Hale Landis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:49 PM
To: T13 (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [t13] 48BIT Supported Poll
This message is from the T13 list server.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700, Gary Laatsch wrote:
>This message is from the T13 list server.
>Question to all the drive folks.......
>There seems to be a fuzzy area about use of the 48-bit
>addressing supported bit in the IDENTIFY DATA (bit 10 of WORD
>83). I guess some are setting this bit regardless of the drive
>capacity and some are only setting it if the capacity is over
>137GB. I am hearing "rumors" that this might be creating some
>driver issues because of the SET MAX and SET MAX EXT commands.
Even a 64MB CF device could (in theory) claim to support 48-bit
LBA. Properly designed and tested drivers should have no
problems with any sized device that claims support of 48-bit LBA.
*** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
