Without the valid bits at least one set of TSScorp drives report 0 in
word 93 for PATA 40 wire, which we (and the specs) say actually means
SATA. (The SATA version seems to report 80 wire...)
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclud
Alan Cox wrote:
Without the valid bits at least one set of TSScorp drives report 0 in
word 93 for PATA 40 wire, which we (and the specs) say actually means
SATA. (The SATA version seems to report 80 wire...)
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SATA version on what controller? Have you
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:23:39 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Without the valid bits at least one set of TSScorp drives report 0 in
> > word 93 for PATA 40 wire, which we (and the specs) say actually means
> > SATA. (The SATA version seems to report 80 wire...)
>
Alan Cox wrote:
Without the valid bits at least one set of TSScorp drives report 0 in
word 93 for PATA 40 wire, which we (and the specs) say actually means
SATA. (The SATA version seems to report 80 wire...)
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-fr
> > - if (ata_id_is_sata(dev_id))
> > - return 0; /* SATA */
> > if ((dev_id[93] & 0x2000) == 0x2000)
> > return 0; /* 80 wire */
> > return 1;
>
> I've been thinking a lot about this, and I am really wondering if we
> should fix up the IDENTIFY DEVICE
Hi all!
As the originator of this patch, please let me comment.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Alan Cox wrote:
>> Without the valid bits at least one set of TSScorp drives report 0 in
>> word 93 for PATA 40 wire, which we (and the specs) say actually means
>> SATA. (The SATA version seems to report 80 wire.
Pinging ... don't take this personal guys, but are we going to keep the
original, dangerously broken implementation in 2.6.24, or will my patch go
upstream in time?
cheers,
Peter
---
Hi all!
As the originator of this patch, please let me comment.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Alan Cox wrote
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:35:32PM +0100, Peter Missel wrote:
> Pinging ... don't take this personal guys, but are we going to keep the
> original, dangerously broken implementation in 2.6.24, or will my patch go
> upstream in time?
Up to Jeff/Linus.
Alan (on holiday)
-
To unsubscribe from thi
