Grant R. Guenther (grant@torque.net)
Sun, 14 Dec 1997 22:07:56 -0500 (EST)
> Like I said a couple of days ago
Did you ask me this question ? I wasn't aware that this was being
debated.
>(when I saw the reservations in
> Docutemntation/devices.txt, why aren't these handled like other IDE devices,
> that is to say, mixing all ATAPI/IDE devices in one set of device-files? IE
> - /dev/phda, /dev/phdb, /dev/phdc... with sub-devices for each partation (on
> partationed devices). (phd for parallel-port hard drive). This makes much
> more sense to me then segregating different types of devices, as (I assume)
> you can plug any IDE/ATAPI device into any one of these adapters.
It's not self evident to me that one naming convention is better than
another. Why does it make more sense to you to call something a
hard-disk, even if it isn't ? The standard IDE drivers use the naming
conventions that they do because there are a small number of physical
slots in which a device can be located (primary/secondary, master/slave).
The parallel port IDE drivers support chains of adapters on
the same port, up to six different ports, master or slave on each
_adapter_, as well as LUNs - all of which adds up to something much
more like the SCSI subsystem, on which the PARIDE design is loosely
based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant R. Guenther grant@torque.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:17:12 EST