On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 12:20:10PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Then, the plans I have in mind for the future of that stuff are around
> the idea of registering "constructors" based on bus matches and device
> matches respectively.
>
> The kernel will then walk the whole OF device-tree
--- Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> >> Oh well, that's the price you have to pay when you 1. have a device
> >> which can't access memory above 4G but 2. don't have IOMMU to do it for
> >> the device. If performance becomes problem, you can always get a
> >>
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 02:48 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 13 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Why not provide a proper pata_of.c driver based on ata_generic? That
> > > will help the next person that has a builtin ata controller and wants
> > > to get it running as an of_device.
> >
> > E
Robert Hancock wrote:
Fred Moyer wrote:
This appears to be a different problem. Something is issuing
SMART-related commands (smartd or smartctl perhaps) which the drive
seems to be reacting strangely to. It apparently completed the
command but never raised DRQ to request any data being transfe
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:48:59PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Fred Moyer wrote:
> > I just joined the list today so apologies if this email breaks any email
> > client post threading.
> > I have been seeing similar errors on two different systems. I applied
> > Robert's sata_nv patch posted
Fred Moyer wrote:
This appears to be a different problem. Something is issuing
SMART-related commands (smartd or smartctl perhaps) which the drive
seems to be reacting strangely to. It apparently completed the command
but never raised DRQ to request any data being transferred even though
we ex
On Sunday 13 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why not provide a proper pata_of.c driver based on ata_generic? That
> > will help the next person that has a builtin ata controller and wants
> > to get it running as an of_device.
>
> Easier to use pata_platform I would think ? Just create the OF device
> Why not provide a proper pata_of.c driver based on ata_generic? That
> will help the next person that has a builtin ata controller and wants
> to get it running as an of_device.
Easier to use pata_platform I would think ? Just create the OF device and
bind it to pata_platform.
Alan
-
To unsubsc
On Saturday 12 May 2007, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> We unfortunately need to modify the resources before calling the generic
> platform driver, since the device tree only has one register window in
> it and the driver expects two. Adding this as an of_platform driver
> instead doesn't give us any b
I have now tested with 2.6.21-git16 with the same result: sda and sdd
froze after copying 1.7GB and 2.7GB respectively.
Here is dmesg output:
[ 59.070670] sata_promise :01:08.0: version 2.07
[ 402.136295] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x138
action 0x2 frozen
[ 402.1363
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [ 715.196000] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
> [ 715.196000] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Stopping disk
> [ 715.196000] ata3.00: DISK MIGHT NOT BE SPUN DOWN PROPERLY. UPDATE SHUTDOWN
> UTILITY
> [ 715.196000] ata3.00: For more info, vi
Robert Hancock wrote:
Fred Moyer wrote:
I just joined the list today so apologies if this email breaks any
email client post threading.
I have been seeing similar errors on two different systems. I applied
Robert's sata_nv patch posted to the list on May 5th, and approved
today by Jeff Garz
Fred Moyer wrote:
I just joined the list today so apologies if this email breaks any email
client post threading.
I have been seeing similar errors on two different systems. I applied
Robert's sata_nv patch posted to the list on May 5th, and approved today
by Jeff Garzik. I've taken several
Replying to my own post:
Wanted to add that the ata1 port just died even without doing any
smartctl's - and not recovering.
BR Peter
Peter Favrholdt wrote:
Hi,
I've tested with 2.6.21.1 with the following patches (which applied
cleanly):
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/2.6/patch-
This is current mainline plus a few patches which I've just sent to Linus:
loop_probe-fix-return-value.patch
fault-injection-disable-stacktrace-filter-for-x86-64.patch
ntfs-use-zero_user_page.patch
tty-flush-flip-buffer-on-ldisc-input-queue-flush.patch
missing-include-file-in-tpm_atmelh.patch
mai
Hi,
I've tested with 2.6.21.1 with the following patches (which applied
cleanly):
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/2.6/patch-sata_promise-1-separate-sata-pata-ops-2.6.21
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/2.6/patch-sata_promise-2-error_intr-2.6.21
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linu
On Thu, 10 May 2007 21:41:32 +0200, Peter Favrholdt wrote:
>I would like to help by testing the most recent version of the
>sata_promise driver on my
>
>Promise Technology, Inc. PDC40718 (SATA 300 TX4) (rev 02)
>
>with 4 Seagate 500GB ES drives:
> Model Number: ST3500630NS
>
Glue code to hook up the pata_platform on the PA Semi Electra eval board.
CFE sets up device tree entries for the IDE interface, with device type
'ide' and compatible field 'electra-ide'.
We unfortunately need to modify the resources before calling the generic
platform driver, since the device tre
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
> upstream-linus
>
..
> Andrew Morton (1):
> git-libata-all: sata_via build fix
..
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_via.c b/drivers/ata/sata_via.c
> index 93
Currently when system which have HPA require HPA to be detected and
disabled upon resume from RAM or disk. The current IDE drivers do not do
this nor does libata(obviously it since it doesn't support HPA yet). I
have implemented this into the current IDE drivers and it has been
tested by many other
20 matches
Mail list logo
