From owner-freebsd-scsi Sun Jul 23 13:55: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCAC37BAFB; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22074; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG, sos@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CAM layer In-Reply-To: <20000723212621.P49169@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've thought about it some, but since sos has such a lock on the current ATA stuff I've not thought very far- sos and I don't get along very well which has hampered taking the thinking very far. The NetBSD midlayer has a good example of SCSI/ATAPI in one layer. It probably wouldn't be *too* hard to add this all to CAM. It's really less of a CAM issue than finding the right glue hooks so that an ATAPI sim interface happens. I suspect that Justin's thought about this a bit more. In another context I've been fooling around with some of the newer ATA spec thingies, and it would be to *BSD's advantage to have a unified ATAPI/SCSI handler as there are many places of complete overlap. But since I consider sos essenitally the complete owner of any of the ATA stuff now, it's really up to him. We have a prettyu reasonably working i386 implementation. I think about a half day's work could dma-busify it (with no real performance penalty) so I'd feel more comfortable about the alpha platform support being solid. But whether or not there is a net benefit to merged support such that da && sa && cd drive ATAPI devices is open to question, and not just on a purely technical level. > Is there anybody working on getting the CAM layer a bit less > SCSI-specific in order to easily fold ATA under it so that we have a > common access method, which CAM should be? > > -- > Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] > Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best > The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project > Any road leads to the end of the world... > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message