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>