Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

Daniel Eischen deischen at
Thu Mar 28 17:39:27 UTC 2013

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Ian Lepore wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's
>>> reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code.
>>> It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes
>>> embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful.
>> Are there many boards now with ATA, but without USB? But I agree, it
>> should be checked.
> It's not necessarily what the boards have but how they're used.  We use
> industrial SBCs at work that have ata compact flash sockets on the board
> which we do use, and usb interfaces which we don't use.
> I've never tested the new ata+cam stuff on some of these boards, most
> based on Cyrix, Via, Geode, and VortexD86 chipsets.  The older ata code
> works, but not always very well -- for example, we usually have to set
> hw.ata.ata_dma=0 for absolutely no reason we've ever been able to figure
> out except that if we leave it enabled we get DMA errors and panics on
> some CF cards and not on others.  I have no idea whether to expect such
> things to be better, worse, or no different by changing to the ata+cam
> way of doing things (but I don't really have time to do extensive
> testing right now either).

Woa, I have to set hw.ata.ata_dma=0 also in order to get
FreeBSD to boot on a PC104 board.  I think ours is a Cyrix
or Via also.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list