This message is from the T13 list server.
I had previously discussed the need for "HPA" validation tools since there seemed to be some discrepancies as to how drive and BIOS vendors interpreted the HPA portion of the specification. Part of that was due to exactly what you are referring too. As a result we decided that a PARTIES-2 specification was in order. Phoenix (Ron Salmon???) is supposed to be presenting the PARTIES-2 spec for T13 this month. Is that still going to happen? I know it is on the agenda for next week. gary laatsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mukesh Kataria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:38 PM Subject: [t13] Does volatile SET MAX "eliminate" HPA > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > Hello: > > Section 6.20, in d1410 r3a says that "If a Host Protected Area has been created using the SET MAX ADDRESS command, all SET MAX ADDRESS EXT commands shall result in command aborted until the Host Protected Area is eliminated by use of the SET MAX ADDRESS command with the address value returned by the READ NATIVE MAX ADDRESS command" > > Question: Will firing a SET MAX (volatile) command [NATIVE MAX] "eliminate" HPA according to definitions in spec or will it just amount to opening the HPA? > > IOW if I do following: > > 1. Create HPA with a SET MAX (non-volatile) > 2. Power reset > 3. Do a SET MAX (volatile) [native max] > 4. SET MAX EXT (non volatile) > > Will this give me an error as in 8.48.1.6, ABRT "ABRT shall be set to one if a host protected area has been established by a SET MAX ADDRESS command,"? > > Cheers, > Mukesh > _____________________________________________________________ > Nothing is impossible in this world. Even the word Impossible > says: I'm possible. Keep :-) > > Mukesh Kataria Phoenix Tech. Ltd. > (408) 570 1589 (W) 411 E. Plumeria Dr. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] San Jose CA 95134 > > > >
