From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 21 18:12:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27289 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:12:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from word.smith.net.au (vh1.gsoft.com.au [203.38.152.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27283 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:12:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00677; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:34:36 +1030 (CST) Message-Id: <199801220204.MAA00677@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Luigi Rizzo cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), vazquez@IQM.Unicamp.BR, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wfd/zip ATAPI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:04:49 BST." <199801211604.RAA29399@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:34:35 +1030 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > The drive appears to wedge up; I get one error register value with a > > sense code of 0xd (which is undefined), and then it stops taking > > commands. > > wouldn't this be a good opportunity to look at our atapi > implementation(*) and see if someone can add at least a watchdog > functionality such as the one (wdtimeout() in wd.c) which is present > for the ordinary IDE drives ? Doesn't wdtimeout get called for all transactions on the bus? Something keeps putting up those "req cb" messages... > I am afraid I don't have sufficient knowledge to _design_ this in a > proper way. Maybe I could hack something but it is not straightforward > since I am not sure how to get a reference from the atapi unit back to > the associated controller. Every time I get stuck in this, I think "what we want to do is rewrite this", and then I think "hmm, translate CAM SCBs to ATA/ATAPI commands", and then I think "when am I going to do this"? *sigh* > > The SFF-8020i document implies that READ-10 is obsolete and that > > READ-12 should be used... > > given that a lot of hardware is also obsolete it does not sound so bad > to use matching commands :) Heh. Bloody legacy issues. 8( -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\