(I'm the Linux SATA maintainer, and author of several SATA drivers in Linux)
Dieter wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that a SATA controller would be easier and faster to
design than a graphics/video controller, and that it would cost significantly
less to get an ASIC fabbed?
Is it anything more than a parallel to serial and serial to parallel
converter. a DMA controller, and the line transceiver?
Shouldn't have any parallel<->serial conversion going on.
The SATA controller is involved in NCQ.
Yes.
I suspect it is involved in error detection/correction?
Yes.
It might be involved in handling port multipliers?
Yes.
Here is the open specification for the native SATA controller found on
many modern motherboards (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Marvell, JMicron, VIA, ...):
AHCI v1.0: http://www.intel.com/technology/serialata/pdf/rev1_0.pdf
AHCI v1.1: http://www.intel.com/technology/serialata/pdf/rev1_1.pdf
If you find yourself creating a controller that looks more like legacy
IDE (shadow register blocks), stop and reconsider. Any
parallel<->serial conversion or state machine inevitably introduces
incompatibilities and increases gate count needlessly.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
