Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:03:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Jarkko Santala <jake@iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problem with UDMA mode on XP1000 Message-ID: <16029.43279.992129.920914@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030416215733.R316@trillian.santala.org> References: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0304151146380.1028-100000@poptart.bithose.com> <20030416122206.S316@trillian.santala.org> <16029.20850.720877.563791@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030416195422.S316@trillian.santala.org> <16029.36001.229632.79139@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030416215733.R316@trillian.santala.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jarkko Santala writes: > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > Jarkko Santala writes: > > > I suppose no checking explains the performance. ;) But good to know > > > anyway. Any reason why it gets enabled by default if its not safe? > > > > The ata code just enables the highest available mode by default. > > > > I'm no expert, but I don't think PIO is safe either. I think it just > > stresses things so much less than DMA that its assumed to be safe. Drew > > How about adding all this into the alpha Hardware Notes? > Its not alpha specific... Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16029.43279.992129.920914>