On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 05:12:36PM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:30, Kris > Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 05:26:37PM > -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Just wondering if anyone has any > > > information/opinion as to why > > > device atapicam is not enabled by > > > default in the GENERIC kernel. > > > > It's not an appropriate default, > > since it modifies the way the ata > > subsystem works in ways the > > maintainer does not wish to support, > > Sorry, but do you mean the ata subsystem > maintainer or the atapicam maintainer?
The former. > Is atapicam part of the base? Yes. > I was > under the impression it implements an > abstracted SCSI interface over the ata > device subsystem but maybe I'm not > adequately understanding what's really > happening. As the name suggests, it provides a CAM front-end to the devices, which is the same front-end used by the SCSI devices, so tools that expect to use CAM can work on the ATA devices too. > Just an observation but it seems as > though there is a great deal of use > being made of the atapicam subsystem. > I noticed for instance that in addition > to /dev/cd0 that /dev/pass0 > and /dev/da0 also did not show up until > I rebuilt with atapicam or did I just > miss them? The equivalent devices have different names under atapicam than ata, but why do you think they are necessary? > Unless I'm wrong doesn't this mean that > usb drives and those types of devices > need the atapicam subsystem? I suspect you're wrong. Kris
pgpZSkTkMS5Zd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
