On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Ian Lepore <i...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's >>> reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. >>> >>> It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes >>> embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful. >> >> Are there many boards now with ATA, but without USB? But I agree, it >> should be checked. >> > > It's not necessarily what the boards have but how they're used. We use > industrial SBCs at work that have ata compact flash sockets on the board > which we do use, and usb interfaces which we don't use. > > I've never tested the new ata+cam stuff on some of these boards, most > based on Cyrix, Via, Geode, and VortexD86 chipsets. The older ata code > works, but not always very well -- for example, we usually have to set > hw.ata.ata_dma=0 for absolutely no reason we've ever been able to figure > out except that if we leave it enabled we get DMA errors and panics on > some CF cards and not on others. I have no idea whether to expect such > things to be better, worse, or no different by changing to the ata+cam > way of doing things (but I don't really have time to do extensive > testing right now either). >
The legacy ATA code was hard to maintain, very buggy (as you point out), and is essentially unmaintained. Also, IIRC, the legacy stack simply cannot support NCQ tagged queueing. I think that Alexander has done a superb job with both developing and supporting the CAM_ATA stack. Scott _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
