From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 7 07:59:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA17350 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from spooky.rwwa.com (rwwa.com [198.115.177.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA17336 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:59:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.rwwa.com (localhost.rwwa.com [127.0.0.1]) by spooky.rwwa.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12827 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:58:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199603071558.KAA12827@spooky.rwwa.com> X-Authentication-Warning: spooky.rwwa.com: Host localhost.rwwa.com didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should we get ATAPI from NetBSD? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Mar 1996 21:08:30 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 10:58:01 -0500 From: Robert Withrow Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Well, that's good! I see three main problems with the ATAPI driver as it > stands: I have an architectural complaint: We already have the ``controller/disk/...'' methodology for ide/atapi disks. This adds ``device'' (sorta like the scsi methodology''. I'd rather we pick *one* methodology. As it is now the two metodologies seem to conflict with each other in the case of atapi/cdrom, given the sensitivity of the cdrom code to whether you have ``disk wdN at wdcN drive N'' for the same controller. If I had my druthers I guess I'd reluctantly pic the scsi way, if there were some indirection of other painless way to maintain the same logical configuration given changes in the physical configuration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 592 8935, Net: witr@rwwa.COM