Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa()
From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden>
Date: 2009-01-26 19:24:34
Alan Cox wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
why we have to check for ATA revision prior to that -- unless we're trying to guard against pre ATA-3 values other than 0 or 0xFFFF.
quoted
quoted
Which we are.
quoted
On what grounds? Note that ATA-3 only names 0 and 0xFFFF as inappropriate values.
On the grounds that there are devices that predate ATA-3 and that we should be robust.
ATA/PI-4 states they had 0 or 0xFFFF there. Again, we weren't robust (by
your definition) in other cases of using words 82-83 -- have it caused issues?
Another argument about robustness: CF specifies word 80 as *reserved* but
does specifies words 82-84 since at least 2.1. What to do about that?
MBR, Sergei