This message is from the T13 list server.
I have some comments/questions about E03132R2... Note: The T13 web site is down (for several days now) so I can't get the "official" E03132R2 PDF. But I was sent the MS Word version that is *very* difficult to read. However... My first comment is: This sure is a kludge. My second comment is: Since the ATAPI device designers (mostly in the Far East) DO NOT pay any attention to T13 or the ATA/ATAPI-x documents, why do you think you will ever see any ATAPI devices that implement this kludge? My technical comments are: 1) What error does a device report if the value of the DMADIR bit does not match the direction of the current command? 2) Do not mess with the definition of the bits in ID word 63. If a device supports this DMADIR bit thing then ID word 63 should be 0. 3) Do not mess with the definition of the bits in ID word 88. If a device supports this DMADIR bit thing then ID word 88 should be 0. 4) General question: What proposal changes the definition of ID word 49 bit 15 to "Bit 15 of word 49 is used to indicate that the device supports interleaved DMA data transfer for overlapped DMA commands." ? 5) Define two entirely new words to take the place of ID words 63 and 88. These words should have the exact same format as ID words 63 and 88 respectively. 6) There is no reason to change the definition of the IO and CD bits. No change is required here. In fact if the value of the IO and CD bits does not match the host's value of DMADIR then that would be some kind of error condition that a host device driver should detect. 7) This proposal needs a new sub-section in clause 6.x of the ATA/ATAPI-7 Vol 1, probably new text in the "PACKET Command Feature Set" clause. Hale *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
