Talk:Parallel ATA/Archives/2020/December

Section "Master and slave clarification"

I could use some help tweaking the first paragraph of this section. The section as currently worded says that Master/Slave terminology was removed with the publication of ATA-7. Unfortunately, those standards appear to cost money, so I can't verify.

The draft version here of volume 2 of 3 still uses the terminology.

The drafts of the two current standards (here and here) both still use the word 'master', but as far as I can tell only to when referring to a master password (as opposed to a user password).

So it's neither accurate that ATA-7 removed the terms, nor that neither term exists in the current standards. (Again, as far as I can tell. Haven't paid money for the official publications.) We should be able to say something different, but I'm not sure what.

--mathieu ottawa (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed the section title to remove the ambiguity with the "password" usage; however the version of "AT Attachment- 8 ATA/ATAPI Parallel Transport, Revision 5, 01 July 2013" which was forwarded to INCITS for public reviews and closed without review still includes definitions: "3.1.25 master: Device 0," and "3.1.26 slave: Device 1." This suggests it is highly likely the published versions have the same definition and so we have to do some more research on this section. Tom94022 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT master and slave drives are still in the Parallel Transport specs, used throughout the article and are all over the internet. The topic is fairly well handled in the parent, Section 2.3 Multiple devices on a cable. So I suggest the subsection just be deleted. Tom94022 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In Information Technology - AT Attachment with Packet Interface - 7, Volume 2 - Parallel Transport Protocols and Physical Interconnect (ATA/ATAPI-7 V2) (Revision 4b, 21 April 2004) you can still read "master/slave". I'd say we remove the subsection. --Zac67 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed. Let's give it a day to see if there are any objections. In the mean time I'll try to figure out what to do about the rich mixture of Master/Slave and Device 0/Device 1 in the article. INCITS seems do have dropped Master/Slave but it Was in common usage and still used to the extent PATA is still being used. Tom94022 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)