[t13] T10/04-262r0
Marushak, Nathan
nathan.marushak at intel.com
Fri Aug 13 10:05:45 PDT 2004
This message is from the T13 list server.
I agree.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forum at t13.org [mailto:owner-forum at t13.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Garzik
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:08 PM
To: t10 at t10.org; Forum at t13.org
Subject: Re: [t13] T10/04-262r0
This message is from the T13 list server.
A note regarding PATA<->SATA hardware bridges, and vendor-reserved
commands.
As Nathan M and Pat noted, there is a question of what happens for a
vendor-reserved ATA command that must traverse a PATA<->SATA bridge.
For those unfamiliar with the current hardware landscape, many early
SATA host controllers were simply pre-existing PATA solutions with a
SATA bridge. I call these "first gen SATA", to distinguish them from
the non-bridged, usually FIS-based SATA controllers coming out today.
First gen SATA controllers will typically -not- be able to control the
command protocol associated with a vendor-reserved ATA command. As I
noted in my response to Pat, my guess is that the SATA bridges will work
for non-data and PIO[-mult] protocols only, but I have no test results
to back this up.
PATA controllers and "second generation" SATA controllers shouldn't have
any problem with a vendor-reserved command's protocol requirements,
however esoteric.
Jeff
More information about the T10
mailing list