Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:49:53 -0700
From:      Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org>
To:        Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ada(4) and ahci(4) quirk printing
Message-ID:  <20130423134953.GA64010@icarus.home.lan>
In-Reply-To: <CAFHbX1JPhfeZMv5t=jLr_2xHVz5XSrhq7Nipd-Qg7xfT%2Boo7nA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20130422051452.GA2148@icarus.home.lan> <51763BF9.2000506@FreeBSD.org> <20130423092602.GA58831@icarus.home.lan> <51765466.4040209@FreeBSD.org> <4D28DBAE46424C268AA22FCDD8657946@multiplay.co.uk> <20130423114722.GA61919@icarus.home.lan> <CC7BB743D5AB4312BB3A0FE37AC1C566@multiplay.co.uk> <20130423125144.GA62949@icarus.home.lan> <CAFHbX1JPhfeZMv5t=jLr_2xHVz5XSrhq7Nipd-Qg7xfT%2Boo7nA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0100, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 01:20:31PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> >> >4) camcontrol wouldn't address the need/interest for ahci(4) quirks to
> >> >be made available.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because camcontrol is for CAM.  ahci(4) is not part of CAM.  The last
> > place I'd look for "poking at AHCI" (as in *actual AHCI*) is camcontrol.
> >
> > This is one of the reasons sysctl exists -- it's a sort of "covers
> > everything" tree, on a per-device basis.
> 
> Just on this point, these quirks aren't actually quirks of ahci(4) are
> they? They are quirks of the disks that are attached to ahci(4), and
> presumably should apply regardless of whether the disk in question is
> hooked up to ahci(4), siis(4) or even mps(4).

There are two patches: one prints ada(4) (disk) quirks, the other prints
ahci(4) (controller) quirks.  These are two separate/unrelated things.

> To my mind, this means the quirks should belong to da(4), or at the
> very least ada(4). ada(4) and da(4) are both manipulated by CAM, so
> having this in camcontrol seems logical to me. To clarify, my mind is
> completely oblivious of how all this is implemented in software, so
> perhaps my mind needs to be changed rather than the code!

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                   jdc@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                http://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US                                            |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.             PGP 4BD6C0CB |



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130423134953.GA64010>