From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 28 17:39:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4AEC40; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:39:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3779883; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.6/8.14.6/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id r2SHdKvW021287; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:39:20 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.1 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:39:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Ian Lepore Subject: Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack? In-Reply-To: <1364479253.36972.77.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Message-ID: References: <51536306.5030907@FreeBSD.org> <5153EE86.8000801@FreeBSD.org> <1364479253.36972.77.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Alexander Motin , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Adrian Chadd X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:39:27 -0000 On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's >>> reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. >>> >>> It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes >>> embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful. >> >> Are there many boards now with ATA, but without USB? But I agree, it >> should be checked. >> > > It's not necessarily what the boards have but how they're used. We use > industrial SBCs at work that have ata compact flash sockets on the board > which we do use, and usb interfaces which we don't use. > > I've never tested the new ata+cam stuff on some of these boards, most > based on Cyrix, Via, Geode, and VortexD86 chipsets. The older ata code > works, but not always very well -- for example, we usually have to set > hw.ata.ata_dma=0 for absolutely no reason we've ever been able to figure > out except that if we leave it enabled we get DMA errors and panics on > some CF cards and not on others. I have no idea whether to expect such > things to be better, worse, or no different by changing to the ata+cam > way of doing things (but I don't really have time to do extensive > testing right now either). Woa, I have to set hw.ata.ata_dma=0 also in order to get FreeBSD to boot on a PC104 board. I think ours is a Cyrix or Via also. -- DE