This message is from the T13 list server.
Hale Landis wrote:
And I can't disagree with this goal especially now that I see the ATAPI
folks have had the chance to review the proposed action. I just think
that if you are going to obsolete the PATA method of TCQ (bus
release/SERVICE/NOP) then it should become obsolete for both ATA and
ATAPI devices. Why wait until ACS-2? As has been noted many times,
obsolete only means that it must be implemented according to the last
standard that described it. Why carry this old stuff into ATA-8?
Removing PATA TCQ (bus release/SERVICE/NOP for just ATAPI but leaving it
for ATA sounds like lots of work - think of all the places in the
documents that need to be updated rather than just deleted - it just
sounds like a lot of work leading to lots of possible mistakes and lots
of document reviews.
Agreed on all counts.
Sure, host controllers and devices will continue to implement. But
let's at least obsolete it.
On a similar note... Why carry PATA into ATA-8? This last valid
description of PATA is ATA/ATAPI-6 (really can't use ATA/ATAPI-7 because
it confuses PATA and SATA in too many places). Does anyone really expect
that PATA will change in the future? Even if it does change, I would bet
the change would require nothing more than a simple errata to ATA/ATAPI-6.
Agreed.
Oh yea, withdraw ATA/ATAPI-7 now. No one knows which description of SATA
to use: ATA/ATAPI-7 or SATA 1.x - some vendors use one, some vendors use
the other - and we all know there are differences between these two
descriptions of SATA. By withdrawing ATA/ATAPI-7 now the confusion is gone.
Disagree. Solve these with an errata or two, or whatnot.
Then disband T13 and let this interface called SATA become a
specification published by a private (and secret) society as is done for
many other device interfaces these days. Seems to work just fine for
them and it eliminates the confusion of having to organizations
publishing the nearly same information. And perhaps more important it
eliminates the confusing that SATA is an interface that is defined by an
ANSI "open standards" process - because SATA is not an thing that is
defined by an "open standards" process.
The world has moved on, no question about that. SATA is now the driving
force in ATA, thus its the driving force in T13. That's no reason to
disband T13.
Jeff
