From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 27 23:23:58 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A44106566B; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:23:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C828FC13; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so7515359wwe.31 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:23:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MeSyjMZwr6cyTLS2MA8ksT/eynw4zfjY7BPFv99JQY0=; b=ip8LdKzAOqTRd3bcop7zhG8Wkp1MtFTMXRO+yHKNYNb7nk0NORonk8hHfQcYUWzsdS 8iqYXREztaDdTePPIRU+uLX+rVuF9DJiNiho6HxA9IcSJBqziSX7AyAY64DITZjP71LL KHpgk74WMrZyz4J0oWa1y/oiHD5GujDuSOUYQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.180.148 with SMTP id j20mr284084wem.56.1322436236768; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.94.131 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:23:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <44ehwt5r9g.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <44ehwt5r9g.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:23:56 +0000 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: Lowell Gilbert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Thomas Mueller , mav@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "options atapicam" and/or "device ATA_CAM" in kernel config? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:23:58 -0000 On 11/27/11, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > "b. f." writes: > >>> > > What is the role of "options atapicam" and "device ATA_CAM" in kernel >>> > > config file? >>> >>> > > Are they redundant? Kernel will build with both these options, but >>> > > will it make things go awry? Is ATA_CAM deprecated? >> >> They are redundant and incompatible. atapicam is deprecated, and >> ATA_CAM is the new default on FreeBSD 9 and 10. Unless you have some >> special requirements, you should use ATA_CAM on recent versions of >> FreeBSD, because it usually performs better than the old ATA code, and >> has added functionality. > > Ah. My apologies to anyone I confused with my incorrect comments. > > I must say that I'm thoroughly disappointed that my searches through the > official documentation didn't turn up anything related to this. Even the > Handbook, with extensive practical descriptions of how to use this > functionality, doesn't mention that its advice is irrelevant to anything > past 8.x. The handbook does contain some oblique and scattered references to the new code, or at least to constructs that are common to both the old and the new code, but the addition of a brief discussion of the differences between the new and old ATA code in the handbook -- i.e., the kernel and userland components that are now obsolete, and their replacements -- might be of some help to users. The primary author of the new code did add some material to various notes and manpages, but he has been very busy writing and debugging code, and English is not his first language, so others will have to supplement his efforts. Perhaps you could ask for some additions on the freebsd-doc mailing list? b.