Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:27:39 +0100 | From | Padraig Brady <> | Subject | Re: Cool Road Runner |
| |
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote: > >> OK can we just have a technical discussion? > > Please, lets do, I am tired of the battles > >> I.E. no need for PCMCIA or any of that. I understood from your >> responses that you didn't realise this? > > This valid that I do not know everything and that CFA does interesting > things more than what was specified in the past.
cool.
>> 2. Compact Flash in this application (I.E. solid state hard disk) is >> getting very popular as prices are tumbling. >> >> 3. Having a config parameter (uneeded kludge in my opinion), like hdx=flash >> even if hdx is not a compact flash is confusing. Can we call it hdx=probe >> which fits nicely with the noprobe option. >> >>> I then explained why the detection was failing and pointed where to verify. >> >> No you didn't. You mentioned a 30 second timeout, but not why it >> was caused. Have you seen this yourself or can you point us at who >> reported this to you? > > Sorry phone call and email got mixed togather. > But I did explain that there could be a failure to detect if PDIAG/DASP > if one or the other devices was held to long and the wrong device reported > a signature in the task register. Also that the if you reversed the two > device it would correctly report always. >
Hmm, OK.
>> >>> After 3-5 attempts and I can not get the point across because the other >>> party keeps going off in different directions to do "what about this", >> >> Emm, I think *you* were going off describing your application with >> a "bazar ata-bridge", not the simple use of a compact flash as a >> hard disk. > > Not quite, the electronic differences and flash in native mode is > incompatable, if you put it in to a mode that is 5V compatable then it > does seem possible and reasonable to work. Your imperical data points > verify this issue.
cool
> What really needs to happen is that all the devices that are CFA-like > which require name parsing for detecting should have the "flash" rule > imposed. Whereas the ones that correctly report 0x848A for word 0 of the > identify page may be exempt.
sounds good if we can easily differentiate between buggy & non-buggy flash.
> This seems like a reasonable step given that you are pointing out you > a have modern CFA's that are more than just CFA's.
I'm not sure I have. They seem to following the latest spec I downloaded from www.compactflash.org
> Would that work for you? > >>> I finally pointed out facts that distrub people, and gave up on trying to >>> show/present/give the answer and offered to then enforce their beliefs of >>> reality. >>> >>> So I state a few facts very pointed to get their attention again and that >>> is additude?? >> >> Actually I thought the final email was a little more concise/informative, thanks. > > Well I am glad that somebody gleened some information and providing > feedback so that forward progress is possible, and not the classic battles.
cool,
Padraig.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |