On Thu, Jun 28 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
Because 8020 is _old and dated_, yet some manufacturers still base new
devices on it. That is what is broken, clearly noone is faulting a '96
device for being based on SFF-8020, however a '09 and '01
I should have known that you (instructor of the current and previous
maintainer) would have the answer off the top ;-)
Therefore by your description it mys be set always but I guess it is a
DGD; however, I do want to know that it is now.
Oh, and now that Big Drive Technology has been annouced I
Okay my bad it is ATA-1 but even that does not explain the bit.
only that section 7.2.6 top of page 14 (index numbers) defines it to be
set to 1 with out a reason.
This this is a pre-ATA thing back in IDE.
If you really want to know the answer I can go dig it up, but later.
Cheers,
Andre
Okay my bad it is ATA-1 but even that does not explain the bit.
only that section 7.2.6 top of page 14 (index numbers) defines it to be
set to 1 with out a reason.
This this is a pre-ATA thing back in IDE.
If you really want to know the answer I can go dig it up, but later.
Cheers,
Andre
I should have known that you (instructor of the current and previous
maintainer) would have the answer off the top ;-)
Therefore by your description it mys be set always but I guess it is a
DGD; however, I do want to know that it is now.
Oh, and now that Big Drive Technology has been annouced I
On Thu, Jun 28 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
Because 8020 is _old and dated_, yet some manufacturers still base new
devices on it. That is what is broken, clearly noone is faulting a '96
device for being based on SFF-8020, however a '09 and '01 is
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you cannot
> get rid of :-(
in ANSI X3.279-1996, "AT Attachment Interface with Extensions (ATA-2)",
Approved September 11, 1996 , control register bit 3-7 are reserved.
However ANSI
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
> get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
> This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
> silly! I hope you agree to that point.
No,
in
Andre Hedrick wrote:
That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
silly! I hope you agree to that point.
No,
in ANSI
Andre Hedrick wrote:
That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you cannot
get rid of :-(
in ANSI X3.279-1996, AT Attachment Interface with Extensions (ATA-2),
Approved September 11, 1996 , control register bit 3-7 are reserved.
However ANSI
That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
silly! I hope you agree to that point.
This is the drive->ctrl register
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
> Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
...
> Not all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
> rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
>
Thanks for
Andre Hedrick wrote:
It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
...
Not all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
Thanks for pointing
That is a legacy bit from ATA-2 but it is one of those things you can not
get rid of :-( even thou things are obsoleted, they are not retired.
This means that you have to go back into the past to see how it was used,
silly! I hope you agree to that point.
This is the drive-ctrl register
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
> still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
> the subsystem three plus years ago.
>
From: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
the subsystem three plus years ago.
Hi Andre -
Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
Gunther,
It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
Also look closely
No all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
static int
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> PARANIOA.
This is not a valid reason.
This clearly fixes a bug in linux. Note: the irq disable
is local to ide-cs. Are you paranoid enough to believe
enabling the irq by writing globally to the control register that
existed since ATA will have ill effects?
You claim
PARANIOA.
Remember that ATAPI is generally screwed beyond reality, so adjusting the
probe code in general (global) is a bad thing.
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
-
ASL, Inc.
> obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
> there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
> driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
> interrupt we can handle the execption, but you do not go around blanket
It should be all devices that do not claim ATA-4/5 support.
I have to go back and look to see what the cut-off was that CFA agreed to
move forward off the dead docs.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
Alan,
It is an issue that we have been trying to get fixed, and only after
obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
> people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
See Alan's point about existing hardware.
>
> That device is enabling (with its ablity to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 12:29:47AM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
> people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
>
> That device is enabling with its ablity to
> I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
> ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
ATA-2 may be obsolete but existing ATA-2 hardware doesnt spontaenously
combust when the spec changes (much Im sure to some vendors dissappointmnent)
-
To
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
That device is enabling with its ablity to assert its device->host
interrupt regardless of the HOST...that is a bad device.
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
That device is enabling with its ablity to assert its device-host
interrupt regardless of the HOST...that is a bad device.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 12:29:47AM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
That device is enabling with its ablity to assert its
Andre Hedrick wrote:
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
people to move to ATA-4 or ATA-5.
See Alan's point about existing hardware.
That device is enabling (with its ablity to assert)
It should be all devices that do not claim ATA-4/5 support.
I have to go back and look to see what the cut-off was that CFA agreed to
move forward off the dead docs.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
Andre Hedrick wrote:
PARANIOA.
This is not a valid reason.
This clearly fixes a bug in linux. Note: the irq disable
is local to ide-cs. Are you paranoid enough to believe
enabling the irq by writing globally to the control register that
existed since ATA will have ill effects?
You claim
I can not help if you have a device that not compliant to the rules.
ATA-2 is OBSOLETED thus we forced (the NCITS Standards Body) the CFA
ATA-2 may be obsolete but existing ATA-2 hardware doesnt spontaenously
combust when the spec changes (much Im sure to some vendors dissappointmnent)
-
To
obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
interrupt we can handle the execption, but you do not go around blanket
Alan,
It is an issue that we have been trying to get fixed, and only after
obsoleting ATA-2 did their attention at CFA become alarmed. I agree that
there needs to be a fix, but not at the price of locking the rest of the
driver. Since we now the identity of the device prior to assigned the
PARANIOA.
Remember that ATAPI is generally screwed beyond reality, so adjusting the
probe code in general (global) is a bad thing.
Andre Hedrick
ASL Kernel Development
Linux ATA Development
-
ASL, Inc.
From: Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
the subsystem three plus years ago.
Hi Andre -
Why precisely is complying to SFF-8020 broken?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know yourself first and all the screwed up ATAPI products that are
still using SFF-8020 that has been obsoleted before I start maintaining
the subsystem three plus years ago.
Hi
Gunther,
It fixes a BUG in CFA, but what will it do to the other stuff?
Parse it exclusive to CFA and there is not an issue.
Also look closely
No all ./arch have a control register doing this randomly without know the
rest of the driver will kill more than it fixes.
static int
Hi,
this patch fixes the hard hang (no SYSRQ) on inserting
any PCMCIA ATA/IDE card (e.g. CompactFlash, Clik40 etc)
to a PCI-Cardbus bridge add-in card.
Thanks David for his valuable explanation about what happens:
ide-probe registers it's irq handler too late! After it
triggers the interrupt
Hi,
this patch fixes the hard hang (no SYSRQ) on inserting
any PCMCIA ATA/IDE card (e.g. CompactFlash, Clik40 etc)
to a PCI-Cardbus bridge add-in card.
Thanks David for his valuable explanation about what happens:
ide-probe registers it's irq handler too late! After it
triggers the interrupt
40 matches
Mail list logo
