This message is from the T13 list server.
Pat LaVarre wrote:
I suggested we add a SATA/PATA bit to ID Device. Glad you managed to find a way ...
It's not too late to poke the device vendors to add such a bit.........
The bridge vendors listening carefully enough to agree late as now to add such a bit might be precisely those bridge vendors who didn't transparently pass thru an inaccurate claim of lba48 bit support that in fact omitted support for 16 bits of block count. If so, then such a bit would only tell hosts when to allow more than xFF blocks per CDB, not when to disallow it.
If a bridge vendor touched my proposed "this is a SATA device" feature bit, then I will consider my proposal a failure.
Bridges should be as transparent as possible.
The 'sata device' feature bit should directly reflect the underlying device.
Jeff
