From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeff Garzik
Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 8:22 AM
To: Hale Landis
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [t13] ATA-8 APT Teleconference
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
