|
Message
From: Chris Edmiston<chris@o...>
Date: Fri Apr 13 21:06:09 CEST 2007
Subject: [oc] Re: Cores Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4
H. Peter Anvin Wrote:
> First of all, 48-bit LBA applies to ATA, *not* to ATAPI (which is
> basically SCSI commands carried over an ATA transport.)
True that. I more talking about the specification version, which contains
both ATA/ATAPI.
> ATA is pretty much designed so that the HBA can be very dumb. All
problems with 48-bit LBA I've seen have been with "smart" cores than do more
than just provide a basic bus interface.
Yeah, they made it pretty easy to implement the host. Good to know that you
haven't seen many problems.
> Modulo bugs, I don't see any reason why a current single-port ATA HBA
> should ever have to be updated, because ATA is unlikely to progress any
> further, having been supplanted by SATA.
Good point. I was just curious because I haven't fully implemented it yet
and it hadn't been updated in years.
> It's worth noting that although there are SATA controllers which mimic
> ATA controllers, they are *very* different standards, and those
> controllers have complex emulation in hardware. Furthermore, native
> SATA controllers have much better performance. They do, however,
> require very different (and much more complex) driver support.
> -hpa
Good to know. Thanks for your response!
Chris Edmiston
|
 |
Browse
