Updated SATA support patches for Intel ICH & Promise cards

[Joe Rhett]

I'm not certain I'll have the time to assist with code, but I do have large
amounts of various hardware so I can certainly spend time testing the code
and/or getting you a build environment on the hardware if you don't have it
already.

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:59:25AM +0200, Sren Schmidt wrote:
> Joe Rhett wrote:
> >Just so you know, you're singing to the choir here.  I think everyone
> >realizes that its going to take coordination.   But Soren didn't say
> >"whoah, let's try this a different way" he went directly to "you're wasting
> >my time" without even a basic attempt to consolidate the efforts.
> 
> I dont recall using those words, neither does my mail archive.
> 
> So now that we are wasting our time on this lets gets things straight.
> 
> On april 3rd Doug posted a patch to solve some of the ich problems on 
> -current. I responded with a couble of questions and some of the stuff 
> in there was fixed (differently or correctly depending on your view) in 
> -current back when. Then time passed, I got access to Intel HW here, and 
> then this patch shows up. I tell Doug that it conflicts with the work 
> I've been doing to get the Intel parts flying, but that the RAID 
> metadata code he talks about would be welcomed (but thats not in the 
> patch at hand mind you). Then all hell breaks loose...
> 
> Now, since I'm working on getting *ALL* SATA controllers working 
> properly (not just Intel) and getting error/status info from them (which 
> is pretty much ignored currently), I have to take a more general look at 
> things, and have devised a scheme and implemented most of it already. 
> This scheme doesn't fit with Doug's work, but parts of it is semilar in 
> functionality for the Intel parts (surprise).
> 
> Maybe I should spend more time publishing whats going on here about ATA 
> but until now I've prefered to use whatever time and resources I have to 
> make things happend instead. And frankly I havn't noticed any interest 
> in this from anyone, except when things break I get plenty of nagging 
> emails telling me so. Time is a precious resource these days and having 
> to deal with situations like this doesn't help motivation either.
> 
> So, for those *really* interested in ATA work and I mean interested in 
> the sense of spending hours on it every day or at least on a very 
> regular basis, lets talk about it off the lists. The project needs one 
> to take on doing ATA maintenance on -stable, which would be a fine 
> introduction to doing ATA work that could make a difference....
> 
> That said, I'll still take my position as ATA developer/maintainer up to 
> revision, it takes *ALOT* of my time, and frankly it hasn't been anyway 
> near as fun lately as it used to be...
> 
> >On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:15:15PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> >
> >>>It sounds very much like you're putting your ego far, far in front
> >>>of functional code.
> >>
> >>I think you should go back and read the history of the work that
> >>Soren has done before you criticize him.  I am not at all surprised
> >>that he has a large number of patches in the queue due to the amount
> >>of work that he puts in on ATA (mostly unheralded).
> >>
> >>There is certainly plenty of work to go around in this area, but
> >>no doubt needs careful coordination due to the complexity of the
> >>work involved -- it has seemed, in the past, that seemingly-trivial
> >>changes break old, brain-damaged, ATA hardware.
> >>
> >>Please, folks, let's try to work together on these really hard
> >>problems, and respect that fact that coordinating lots of changes
> >>are always going to require extra work -- but it will get FreeBSD
> >>a lot further along towards its goals in the long run.
> >>
> >>mcl
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Søren

-- 
Joe Rhett                                                      Chief Geek
JRhett at Isite.Net                                      Isite Services, Inc.