On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:47:37 -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
>This patch vs 2.6.19, based on the not-actually-working-for-me
>code lurking in libata-dev.git#promise-sata-pata, makes the PATA
>ports on my promise sata card actually work. Since the plan as
>checked into git, is to drive the PATA ports as if they were
>SATA, we have to teach sata_scr_read() to lie for the PATA ports
>which don't to that, lest the various places that call
>ata_port_offline() and ata_port_online() should fail and leave
>the ports offline and inaccessible.
>
>This patch gets both SATA and PATA working for me with the
>sata_promise driver on a PDC20375. Performace seems to be about
>what I would expect, so this (or something very much like it)
>should be applied upstream.
This description doesn't match my experience.
The patch in #promise-sata-pata should work for 2037x chips.
It doesn't work on 2057x chips because it doesn't remove
ATA_FLAG_SATA from board_2057x. That omission causes libata
to consider all ports on it as SATA, including the PATA port,
and that's why sata_scr_read() etc get invoked.
Applying the patch below on top of #promise-sata-pata fixes
this, and is all I had to do to get working PATA on my 20575.
/Mikael
--- linux-2.6.19/drivers/ata/sata_promise.c.~1~ 2006-12-05 20:42:18.000000000
+0100
+++ linux-2.6.19/drivers/ata/sata_promise.c 2006-12-05 21:01:26.000000000
+0100
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static const struct ata_port_info pdc_po
/* board_2057x */
{
.sht = &pdc_ata_sht,
- .flags = PDC_COMMON_FLAGS | ATA_FLAG_SATA,
+ .flags = PDC_COMMON_FLAGS /* | ATA_FLAG_SATA*/,
.pio_mask = 0x1f, /* pio0-4 */
.mwdma_mask = 0x07, /* mwdma0-2 */
.udma_mask = 0x7f, /* udma0-6 ; FIXME */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
