Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:37:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Phil Oleson <oz@nixil.net> Cc: Daan Vreeken <Daan@vehosting.nl>, Alexander Motin <mav@mavhome.dp.ua>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WIP: ATA to CAM integration Message-ID: <200906152337.n5FNbQrI008014@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4A254B45.8050800@mavhome.dp.ua> <4A294DC3.5010008@mavhome.dp.ua> <200906051728.n55HSFf0076644@apollo.backplane.com> <200906152352.48231.Daan@vehosting.nl> <200906152209.n5FM9psY007070@apollo.backplane.com> <4A36CEE9.9040101@nixil.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:meh.. found this via google: : :http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/storage-accessories,1787-2.html : :The article claims it's AHCI compliant.. though the addonics web page :doesn't specifically says so from a cursory glance here: : :http://www.addonics.com/products/host_controller/extpm.asp : :and the other form factors. :http://www.addonics.com/products/pm/ : : -Phil. I think they mis-spoke. They are SATA-compliant and Port Multiplier compliant, and they use FIS-based packets, so they pretty much do away with all the ATA baggage, but they don't use the AHCI device interface so they won't probe as an AHCI driver. I can see why they do it that way, though. It looks like they hide most of the complexity behind the chipset, which is nice. AHCI exposes a lot of that complexity. It looks like a reasonable chipset. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200906152337.n5FNbQrI008014>