Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/conf
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 05/22/2004 19:20:56
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:09:26AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On May 22, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >No, atabus and umass are at the same level in the config herarchy.
> >Both offer a way to transfer data from/to a wd device, but do it in a
> >way: atabus drive the wd device directly from its register, while
> >umass talks to a ata/usb bridge which hide the ATA registers from us.
> FWIW, I have always disagreed with this approach. I would prefer that
> atabus by a common midlayer for all ATA controllers, the same way
> scsibus is for SCSI controllers.
But umass isn't an ATA controller.
atabus provide methods for sending commands and transfering data to an
ATA device. umass provide others.
I don't see what another layer in the device tree would buy us, as
there can be only one device (wd) attaching at thoses.
Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference