On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:09:50PM -0700, Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote:
>
> Upon a more exact definintion, I will request a formal NCITS number.
quite frankly, why is all this necessary? Why are ata standards that much
different from any other standards?
> states: That which is not in the standard is not part of the standard.
Exactly. Gcc can do ansi-c, but that doesn't mean it is limited to it. The
german telecom adheres to ets-300-102 (euro-isdn), but of course this does
not mean that they are forced to disallow any other protocol on their
lines. The linux kernel can fully adhere to an ata stnadrad and _still_ be
able to send vendor-specific commands.
So why must an ata standard try to regulate something that simply is
outside of it's scope?
Everything you said so far boiled down basically to: "if you can send
non-standard commands using the kernel, the kernel is not ata compliant".
This sounds so 120% counter-productive, inhibiting *any* further
development (for example, that would mean that an ata-3 drive is
automatically incompatible to ata-2 or any earlier standard).
*puzzled*
and I thought the t13 people made slightly unconventional but still sane
standards ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:18 EST