What specs do you think was followed for implementing the support in Linux, NetBSD, AROS, Minimig, UAE etc?
Once again: I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T CARE. This is not Linux, NetBSD, AROS Miniming or UAE.
Again . Jens Schönfeld is very likely able to provide you all the spec information needed, and there is source code available from all the mentioned projects about his this is implemented.
That still doesn't allow me to test anything. Once again: Specs *AND* hardware.
I don't get exactly why this focus on ElBox? This was never their invention, they are just one of many implementers, among them, also Jens Schönfeldt - http://wiki.icomp.de/wiki/IDE-fix (and now I understand that EB is "Elaborate Bytes")
It does not matter. Replace by "generic vendor". Once again, in case you still don't get it: WE ARE NOT THE SUPPORT FOR /generic vendor/. IF /generic vendor/ WANTS US TO SUPPORT HIS HARDWARE, WE NEED THE SPECS AND THE HARDWARE, OR /generic vendor/ HAS TO DO THE SUPPORT ITSELF.
Got it? This is how commercial products work. You wouldn't also request your landlord to support your washing mashine just because it's sitting in your appartment.
One could argue that the current scsi.device is "half working" as one could really support exactly twice as many devices on the bus
It is fully working to what it was supposed to be working with. Namely, the naked IDE/SCSI interface available in the hardware that it was developed for.
There is no need to put it in kickstart - it would be easy to allow the (drumroll) __*** U S E R ***___ to explicitly load a dedicated variant of scsi.device with such support that officially is considered "an experiemental hack".
WE DO NOT DEVELOP EXPERIMENTAL SOFTWARE. This is not an open source project where you can get away with "oh well, we didn't care so much". Either the thing is tested and working, or it is not tested. And software that is not tested is not working.
Yes, we do make bugs, as everybody else. But at least, I will not blindly type down something, "oh well, this is good enough, let's just sell it". Not without having a piece of hardware, and without having someone evaluated it and having tested it positively.
Despite, I still don't get why you expect us to take down the trash of some third party vendor that abandoned its products. That's bad enough, but why do you expect to us to put this support on our shoulders. If the support for /generic vendor/ does not work, ditch the product. After all, you seem to believe that I'm responsible for every product that could potentially be installed in the Amiga.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Get over it. IT IS /generic vendor/ WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS PRODUCTS.