This message is from the T13 list server.
Gary; It looks to me that the implementation has different paths. I am given the option to choose. 48-bit Support allows larger transfers, this is good. It is there if I need it. 48 Bit addressing, also increases the command overhead, ever so slightly. Decision! I have a choice. As Hale states, "Properly designed and tested drivers should have no problems with any sized device that claims support of 48-bit LBA." Tom Colligan > From: Gary Laatsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:04:08 -0700 > To: Hale Landis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "T13 (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [t13] 48BIT Supported Poll > > 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 *** > > >
