This message is from the T13 list server.
Pat LaVarre wrote:
I'd say the op xEC "IDENTIFY" data of this SATA/PATA device is incorrect. This composite device claims 48-bit support without offering 16 bits of block count. We didn't provide a way to say that in the definition of the op xEC data. Of course I hate to see compliant devices penalised merely because others do not comply.
It is specific to two bridge+controller combinations. The bridge by itself isn't a problem, nor are the controllers in question, nor are other bridge+controller combinations.
Does the failure have some regularity to it that you could test for?
Yes. One user's setup is completely unusable without my workaround.
For example, can you easily penalise old SATA only, and not also old SATAPI?
I do not penalize SATA at all. This does not appear to occur on devices or controllers with a hardwired bridge (so far anyway).
I'd particularly like to see PATAPI devices thru an actually transparent SATAPI/ PATAPI bridge allowed to copy up to xFFFF LBA's per CDB. Perhaps PATAPI/ SCSI devices have more history of benefitting from and supporting more than xFF LBA's per CDB.
I would rather just deprecate Parallel ATA completely, and push vendors to use non-bridged native solutions. ;-)
FIS-based, bay-bee...
Jeff
