From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 28 14:00:56 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3738671; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:00:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D04E9B8; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c-24-8-230-52.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.230.52] helo=damnhippie.dyndns.org) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ULDNv-0004sI-MW; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:00:55 +0000 Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r2SE0rsD012965; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:00:53 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org) X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 24.8.230.52 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+xGW/8y2pQO9Q/fZJPv2OI Subject: Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack? From: Ian Lepore To: Alexander Motin In-Reply-To: <5153EE86.8000801@FreeBSD.org> References: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> <5153EE86.8000801@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:00:53 -0600 Message-ID: <1364479253.36972.77.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:00:56 -0000 On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: > On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's > > reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. > > > > It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes > > embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful. > > Are there many boards now with ATA, but without USB? But I agree, it > should be checked. > It's not necessarily what the boards have but how they're used. We use industrial SBCs at work that have ata compact flash sockets on the board which we do use, and usb interfaces which we don't use. I've never tested the new ata+cam stuff on some of these boards, most based on Cyrix, Via, Geode, and VortexD86 chipsets. The older ata code works, but not always very well -- for example, we usually have to set hw.ata.ata_dma=0 for absolutely no reason we've ever been able to figure out except that if we leave it enabled we get DMA errors and panics on some CF cards and not on others. I have no idea whether to expect such things to be better, worse, or no different by changing to the ata+cam way of doing things (but I don't really have time to do extensive testing right now either). -- Ian