Re: Cool Road Runner

[Padraig Brady]

Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote:
> 
>> OK can we just have a technical discussion?
> 
> Please, lets do, I am tired of the battles
> 
>> I.E. no need for PCMCIA or any of that. I understood from your 
>> responses that you didn't realise this?
> 
> This valid that I do not know everything and that CFA does interesting
> things more than what was specified in the past.

cool.

>> 2. Compact Flash in this application (I.E. solid state hard disk) is 
>> getting very popular as prices are tumbling.
>> 
>> 3. Having a config parameter (uneeded kludge in my opinion), like hdx=flash
>>      even if hdx is not a compact flash is confusing. Can we call it hdx=probe
>>      which fits nicely with the noprobe option.
>> 
>>> I then explained why the detection was failing and pointed where to verify.
>> 
>> No you didn't. You mentioned a 30 second timeout, but not why it
>> was caused. Have you seen this yourself or can you point us at who
>> reported this to you?
> 
> Sorry phone call and email got mixed togather.
> But I did explain that there could be a failure to detect if PDIAG/DASP
> if one or the other devices was held to long and the wrong device reported
> a signature in the task register.  Also that the if you reversed the two
> device it would correctly report always.
> 

Hmm, OK.

>> 
>>> After 3-5 attempts and I can not get the point across because the other
>>> party keeps going off in different directions to do "what about this",
>> 
>> Emm, I think *you* were going off describing your application with
>> a "bazar ata-bridge", not the simple use of a compact flash as a
>> hard disk.
> 
> Not quite, the electronic differences and flash in native mode is
> incompatable, if you put it in to a mode that is 5V compatable then it
> does seem possible and reasonable to work.  Your imperical data points
> verify this issue.

cool

 
> What really needs to happen is that all the devices that are CFA-like
> which require name parsing for detecting should have the "flash" rule
> imposed.  Whereas the ones that correctly report 0x848A for word 0 of the
> identify page may be exempt.

sounds good if we can easily differentiate between buggy & non-buggy flash.

> This seems like a reasonable step given that you are pointing out you
> a have modern CFA's that are more than just CFA's.

I'm not sure I have. They seem to following the latest spec I
downloaded from www.compactflash.org

> Would that work for you?
> 
>>> I finally pointed out facts that distrub people, and gave up on trying to
>>> show/present/give the answer and offered to then enforce their beliefs of
>>> reality.
>>> 
>>> So I state a few facts very pointed to get their attention again and that
>>> is additude??
>> 
>> Actually I thought the final email was a little more concise/informative, thanks.
> 
> Well I am glad that somebody gleened some information and providing
> feedback so that forward progress is possible, and not the classic battles.

cool,

Padraig.