Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:24:40 -0400 From: Duane Whitty <duane@greenmeadow.ca> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device atapicam not enabled in GENERIC kernel for FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <200603060024.40716.duane@greenmeadow.ca> In-Reply-To: <20060305213137.GA4276@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200603041726.37525.duane@greenmeadow.ca> <200603051712.36483.duane@greenmeadow.ca> <20060305213137.GA4276@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 05 March 2006 17:31, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 05:12:36PM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > > On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:30, > > Kris > > > > Kennaway wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at > > > 05:26:37PM > > > > -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Just wondering if anyone has > > > > any information/opinion as to > > > > why device atapicam is not > > > > enabled by default in the > > > > GENERIC kernel. > > > > > > It's not an appropriate default, > > > since it modifies the way the ata > > > subsystem works in ways the > > > maintainer does not wish to > > > support, > > > > Sorry, but do you mean the ata > > subsystem maintainer or the > > atapicam maintainer? > > The former. > > > Is atapicam part of the base? > > Yes. > > > I was > > under the impression it implements > > an abstracted SCSI interface over > > the ata device subsystem but maybe > > I'm not adequately understanding > > what's really happening. > > As the name suggests, it provides a > CAM front-end to the devices, which > is the same front-end used by the > SCSI devices, so tools that expect to > use CAM can work on the ATA devices > too. > Ah, ok -- CAM -- common access method. I'm getting this > > Just an observation but it seems as > > though there is a great deal of use > > being made of the atapicam > > subsystem. I noticed for instance > > that in addition to /dev/cd0 that > > /dev/pass0 and /dev/da0 also did > > not show up until I rebuilt with > > atapicam or did I just miss them? > > The equivalent devices have different > names under atapicam than ata, but > why do you think they are necessary? > because I misunderstood what umass needed and I inappropriately generalized on the basis of one port (k3b) > > Unless I'm wrong doesn't this mean > > that usb drives and those types of > > devices need the atapicam > > subsystem? > > I suspect you're wrong. > > Kris > Hi, Thanks Kris. Your suspicions were correct. I was wrong. I re-read the man pages for da, pass, and umass, and nowhere did it say I needed atapicam. So thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I rebooted with the GENERIC kernel, plugged in my usb memory device, and everything worked great. The k3b port required this and I suppose I generalized when I should not have. Again, much thanks. --Duane
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603060024.40716.duane>