From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:06:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:06:26 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:27578 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:05:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:05:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, andre@aslab.com Subject: Re: Patch(2.4.5): Fix PCMCIA ATA/IDE freeze (w/ PCI add-in cards) Cc: Gunther.Mayer@t-online.de, dhinds@zen.stanford.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andre Hedrick 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? That was the standard. The standard that Microsoft required. Other people made a different standard, and claimed that theirs was better or more official or whatever, but reality is that the products were not manufactured following this so-called better standard. You are a good disciple of Hale, but it is no use ignoring the fact that a very large number of devices was made following SFF-8020. These devices are not necessarily screwed, they tend to work fine, although both ATA and ATAPI devices have their quirks. SFF-8020, later INF-8020, became part of ATA/ATAPI-4 (1998). The T13 people that merged SFF-8020 and produced ATA/ATAPI-4 changed a few details about how a master is supposed to react when a nonexistent slave is selected. Nobody really noticed, and ATA/ATAPI-5 still had the same requirements. But then long discussions about this difference caused ATA/ATAPI-6 to go back to the original SFF-8020 requirements. Do you disagree with this description of history? If you agree then it is not SFF-8020 but ATA/ATAPI-4 and ATA/ATAPI-5 that today must be considered broken in this respect. I am referring to Section 9.16.1 of these standards. Maybe there are other things in SFF-8020 that you consider broken? Andries