SATA-II directions

Hi,

I've been hacking on a Silicon Image 3124, 3132, 3531
driver.  My
implementation relies on ata(4), like ahcisata(4).  But
this
may not be the best all-around solution.

Direct your attention now to OpenBSD's ahci(4), sili(4), and
atascsi(4).
They support NCQ and ATAPI already.  On the other hand, I'm
not sure if
this would allow for SMART and whatnot to be used.

Anyone think porting these would be a good idea?

Or, would writing a proper SATA framework be much better?

	Jonathan Kollasch

On Jul 22, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been hacking on a Silicon Image 3124, 3132, 3531
driver.  My
> implementation relies on ata(4), like ahcisata(4).  But
this
> may not be the best all-around solution.

Wasabi had a 3124 driver that supported NCQ, etc.  It used
ata(4).

> Direct your attention now to OpenBSD's ahci(4),
sili(4), and  
> atascsi(4).

It's wrong to bolt this stuff underneath SCSI.


>
> They support NCQ and ATAPI already.  On the other hand,
I'm not sure  
> if
> this would allow for SMART and whatnot to be used.
>
> Anyone think porting these would be a good idea?
>
> Or, would writing a proper SATA framework be much
better?

Well, ATA and SATA use the same command set.  Only the
transport is  
different.  You also have the problem of what to do with
SATA-I  
controllers that basically behave like a legacy WDC-type
controller.

>
>
> 	Jonathan Kollasch

-- thorpej

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:41:06PM -0700, Jason Thorpe
wrote:
> 
>  On Jul 22, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Jonathan A. Kollasch
wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been hacking on a Silicon Image 3124, 3132,
3531 driver.  My
> > implementation relies on ata(4), like ahcisata(4).
 But this
> > may not be the best all-around solution.
> 
>  Wasabi had a 3124 driver that supported NCQ, etc.  It
used ata(4).
> 
> > Direct your attention now to OpenBSD's ahci(4),
sili(4), and atascsi(4).
> 
>  It's wrong to bolt this stuff underneath SCSI.
> 

That was my initial hunch.

> 
> >
> > They support NCQ and ATAPI already.  On the other
hand, I'm not sure if
> > this would allow for SMART and whatnot to be
used.
> >
> > Anyone think porting these would be a good idea?
> >
> > Or, would writing a proper SATA framework be much
better?
> 
>  Well, ATA and SATA use the same command set.  Only the
transport is 
>  different.  You also have the problem of what to do
with SATA-I controllers 
>  That basically behave like a legacy WDC-type
controller.
>
> 

ATAPI should just be a matter of writing new glue code for
the
non-WDC-type controllers.

I guess SATA port multipliers could eventually be supported
by
wedging some sort of new piece into the ATA stack
somewhere.

Also, hot-swap could probably be fit in somehow too.

>
> >
> > 	Jonathan Kollasch
> 
>  -- thorpej

Thanks for the pointers.

	Jonathan Kollasch