Reminder: Please send your opinions CORE Feature Hybrid disc

Takaharu Ai ai.takaharu at jp.panasonic.com
Fri Jan 6 03:42:42 PST 2006


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Takaharu Ai <ai.takaharu at jp.panasonic.com>
*
Hello Katata-san,

>Q1. CORE feature v2,

I have already sent my comment in the other E-mail. My opinion was that
Mt.Fuji group should remain the current Core Feature definition as it is
to keep the consistency between MMC4 standard and Mt.Fuji specification.


>Q2. Hybrid command,
> Do you accept the change of reporting error?
> If you accept, which do you favor Reporting error vs. No reporting error.

Although this command set was my proposal, I will follow the majority.


Best Regards,

Harry Ai
VEBU
Panasonic AVC Networks Company
Matsushita/Panasonic
Osaka, Japan


---------------- Start of the original message ----------------
>From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
>To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
>Cc: t10 at t10.org
>Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:15:20 +0900
>Subject: Reminder: Please send your opinions CORE Feature Hybrid disc
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>Please send your opinion by Jan. 8 if you may not attend the next MMC5 WG.
>
>Q1. CORE feature v2,
> Which do you favor Mandatory vs. Optional?
> ---- Microsoft opnion ----
> Update CORE feature version to 2.
> Add a bit to indicate the following:
> -INQUIRY data Allocation Length is two bytes in length.
> -INQUIRY data format length update.
> -LLBAA and Subpage bits are checked for valid setting by logical unit.
> -Mode field of READ BUFFER command is checked to five bits length by logical
>unit.
> -LBA field of READ CAPACITY is checked by logical unit.
> -Mode field of WRITE BUFFER command is checked to five bits length by logical
>unit.
> --------
>
>Q2. Hybrid command,
> Do you accept the change of reporting error?
> If you accept, which do you favor Reporting error vs. No reporting error.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Keiji Katata
>PIONEER CORP.
>
>---- Original Message at 2005/12/28 ----
>Hi all,
>
>
>1. CORE feature V2
>
>Ai san, you may have different an opinion with Editor and Henry-san.
>
>Editorial comment:
>Thank you Ai san, Kohda san will take care those comments.
>
>Inquiry command:
>All host software uses this command to identify the device type. So regardless
>of MMC device or not, this should work. Also Mode Select, Mode Sense, all host
>software uses this command, so it is desirable that a system uses a module to
>issue this command.
>
>Read Capacity command:
>Already MMC3 (not MMC5) had this field and there was no statement. So Kohda san
>made a statement to help the host software implementation. This will reduce
>confusion of document readers.
>
>Above four command sets, we may care the document readers, so Kohda san made
>sentences. In case of other commands, they are not same situation as the above
>commands.
>
>Format unit command:
>I think this is very different situation. Because since the SBC (1997), SBC and
>Fuji were different each other. So MMC has its own description now.
>
>Read command, Write command:
>I think SBC device and MMC device have different requirements of market. So they
>must have own description.
>
>Ai san, could you consider this historical situation. Then could you reconsider
>your requests.
>
>
>2. Hybrid disc command
>
>I understand Henry-san opinion. But this has been voted and has been agreed as
>Hybrid disc command set. Posting new proposal has been closed now. And sending a
>wrong command to device is a problem of host software. In this case, it is very
>minor mistake and this should not cause any fatal problem of the end users (e.g.
>lose of data, break of media).
>
>But I would like to correct other members opinion if you can accept to change
>this issue again.
>Pioneer does not mind that device reports error, vs. device stops reporting
>error. Both case uses very similar FW program anyway.
>
>3. Request for members
>
>Please send your opinion by Jan. 8th 2006 if you may not attend MMC at Jan. 9th
>2006.
>
>Q1. CORE feature v2,
> Which do you favor Mandatory vs. Optional?
>
>Q2. Hybrid command,
> Do you accept the change of reporting error?
> If you accept, which do you favor Reporting error vs. No reporting error.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Keiji Katata
>PIONEER CORP.
>
>
>
>

----------------- End of the original message -----------------


*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org





More information about the T10 mailing list