Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:58:21 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: des@des.no, jhs@berklix.com, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do we still need ATA disk CHS addressing? Message-ID: <4A807BDD.6040709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090810.125403.74653324.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200908101640.n7AGeYH0054650@fire.js.berklix.net> <86eirjbjl3.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090810.125403.74653324.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > My question, and maybe I missed this earlier in the thread, is what's > the benefit to removing this support? How much code is saved? It is not about code size, but about code structurization. ATA(4) has too much cross-level relations, making it cryptic. I am trying to unroll some of them to simplify code. > Having said all that, I think it is OK, but I'd definitely poll the > pc98 guys first... Just to make sure they don't need it and re-fork > the ata driver to get it :) GEOM has no terms of cylinders/heads/sectors, in fact it works only with LBA. CHS translation is only needed for drives, that have no native LBA support. It is not about disk partitioning or label format. It is just a method to linearize nonlinear address space of ancient drives. For last 10 years, since drives lost their classic geometry, drives are doing this translation on firmware level. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A807BDD.6040709>