Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:07:29 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Cc:        pialkin@abel.pdmi.ras.ru, ache@nagual.ru, spblug@tsctube.spb.su, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ATAPI patch
Message-ID:  <199609131907.MAA09377@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <13048.842599702@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Sep 13, 96 00:28:22 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I don't sure about anything :) For example - my Panasonic 572B doesn't need
> > any delays at all.But GoldStar does.So i don't realy know which one are 
> > neccessary and which not :( 
> 
> I think what he was wondering was whether you'd managed to make the
> GoldStar work with any *less* delays, e.g. is each and every one of them
> known to be necessary?

You seem to be asking:

o	Is there a CDROM drive for which the set of all possible
	delays is the smallest possible set required for it to operate?
o	If yes, is the drive named "GoldStar"?


8-).

I suspect that there is no way of knowing the answer without empirically
testing, for n delay locations, 2^n kernels against all commercially
available hardware.  The standard simply does not dictate implementation
sufficiently narrow to make it a deterministic problem that can be
"figured" without empirically testing all hardware.  Stupid standard...


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609131907.MAA09377>