From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: use_10_for_ms revisited? Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:32:43 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3EFF30CB.2050301@pobox.com> References: <3EFE8784.4000101@pobox.com> <20030629102222.GA14962@win.tue.nl> <3EFF14BD.3030406@pobox.com> <20030629173632.GA15024@win.tue.nl> <3EFF28AC.104@pobox.com> <20030629182546.GB15024@win.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:47762 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265714AbTF2SSh (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:18:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20030629182546.GB15024@win.tue.nl> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andries Brouwer Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 01:58:04PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >>I would still prefer to detect "MMC", at least in ATAPI's case, and then >>use that flag to trickle down knowledge to use_10_for_ms and similar >>features. ATAPI is even easier than I was previously thinking: at >>host-alloc time, we already know the devices will be MMC, and never ever >>want 6-byte commands. > > > And what do they want? 12-byte commands? > What standard are you reading? SFF-8020? ATA-4? MMC-<1234> from t10.org, which if considered over time (i.e. changes from 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 are interesting) gives a fairly reasonable picture of the subset of scsi that atapi belongs to. That picture seems to gibe with the atapi testing on ancient devices I've done so far. MMC sorta takes over where SFF left off, IMO. You definitely want the sff docs too for the full picture (as you no doubt know already). Jeff