Part 2: Re: 2.5.31 boot failure on pdc20267
Quoted 8 lines · Andre Hedrick
Try reading the entire document first before commenting and showing why people should not believe you.
The author went through great lengths to explain and capture what SFF-8038i defined. The object is to show the difference.
Now carefully look and see that BAR4 in d1510 is not the same as BAR 4 for SFF-8038i.
Chapter 5 describes IDE class devices, PCI class 0101. If this chapter is not normative definition, then it should be clearly stated in the document, besides that it has no bussiness being there if it is just for comparsion - just replace whole chapter with reference to the SFF-8038i.
Chapter 3, ATA Host Adapters, and also document name, ATA Host Adapters Standards, makes strong impression to me that document is normative for all host adapters. If you'll write chapter 5 in same style chapter 4 is written (few lines, no registers description), and you'll change document name, nobody will use it as normative document for non-ADMA devices. But with current wording it is just normative document for both PCI IDE DMA and ADMA hosts, even if T13 intentions were different - document language matters, not intentions.
And amendment you pointed me to strongly signals that also Intel believe[sd] that document is (in future) normative for PCI IDE DMA host adapters, not only for ADMA ones.
I was also impression (from the T13 meeting notes in Feb 20-22 2001 (meetings/e01114r0.pdf, 12.6)) that d1510 is successor of SFF8038. If it adopts PCI DMA, it should document it (as it does now). If it obsolete this interface, it should not document it...
Petr Vandrovec [email protected]
Petr,
I know exactly what the document started out as and the intentions and the transformations to what it is now.
The intent was to describe a new HOST protocol. Something like FP-DMA which is similar to what SBP-2 maps.
Now the document I pointed to as an ammendment had a pre-release only handed out in paper. There are no e-copies, and it was the intent of the second author to preserve the original definition and terms used by 8038i.
Next T13 has no business defining HOST standards it is DISK committee. Go fish :-/
Now if the lastest evolution of the d1510 has an error well it needs to be fixed. Since I know what it is to do and how it does and the intent, I do not used them for references.
But for the record you are required to have the EOT set if you are using 8038i protocols.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Quoted 41 lines · Petr Vandrovec
Quoted 8 lines · Andre Hedrick
Try reading the entire document first before commenting and showing why people should not believe you.
The author went through great lengths to explain and capture what SFF-8038i defined. The object is to show the difference.
Now carefully look and see that BAR4 in d1510 is not the same as BAR 4 for SFF-8038i.
Chapter 5 describes IDE class devices, PCI class 0101. If this chapter is not normative definition, then it should be clearly stated in the document, besides that it has no bussiness being there if it is just for comparsion - just replace whole chapter with reference to the SFF-8038i.
Chapter 3, ATA Host Adapters, and also document name, ATA Host Adapters Standards, makes strong impression to me that document is normative for all host adapters. If you'll write chapter 5 in same style chapter 4 is written (few lines, no registers description), and you'll change document name, nobody will use it as normative document for non-ADMA devices. But with current wording it is just normative document for both PCI IDE DMA and ADMA hosts, even if T13 intentions were different - document language matters, not intentions.
And amendment you pointed me to strongly signals that also Intel believe[sd] that document is (in future) normative for PCI IDE DMA host adapters, not only for ADMA ones.
I was also impression (from the T13 meeting notes in Feb 20-22 2001 (meetings/e01114r0.pdf, 12.6)) that d1510 is successor of SFF8038. If it adopts PCI DMA, it should document it (as it does now). If it obsolete this interface, it should not document it...
Petr Vandrovec [email protected]-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 7 lines · Petr Vandrovec
Quoted 6 lines · Andre Hedrick
Try reading the entire document first before commenting and showing why people should not believe you.
The author went through great lengths to explain and capture what SFF-8038i defined. The object is to show the difference.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Now carefully look and see that BAR4 in d1510 is not the same as BAR 4 for SFF-8038i.
Chapter 5 describes IDE class devices, PCI class 0101. If this chapter
Chapter 3, ATA Host Adapters, and also document name, ATA Host Adapters
ATA class devices, PCI class 0105.
This what you missed, this what we are debating. :-/
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group