This message is from the T13 list server.
I agree. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Garzik Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [t13] T10/04-262r0 This message is from the T13 list server. A note regarding PATA<->SATA hardware bridges, and vendor-reserved commands. As Nathan M and Pat noted, there is a question of what happens for a vendor-reserved ATA command that must traverse a PATA<->SATA bridge. For those unfamiliar with the current hardware landscape, many early SATA host controllers were simply pre-existing PATA solutions with a SATA bridge. I call these "first gen SATA", to distinguish them from the non-bridged, usually FIS-based SATA controllers coming out today. First gen SATA controllers will typically -not- be able to control the command protocol associated with a vendor-reserved ATA command. As I noted in my response to Pat, my guess is that the SATA bridges will work for non-data and PIO[-mult] protocols only, but I have no test results to back this up. PATA controllers and "second generation" SATA controllers shouldn't have any problem with a vendor-reserved command's protocol requirements, however esoteric. Jeff
