Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-10-14 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:31:34 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:19:40 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Unfortunately this breaks pata_pdc2027x on my PowerMac G3: > >>> Did this ever get resolved? > >> All went quiet so I assume its gone away ? > > > > -ENO

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-10-14 Thread Jeff Garzik
Mikael Pettersson wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:19:40 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: Unfortunately this breaks pata_pdc2027x on my PowerMac G3: Did this ever get resolved? All went quiet so I assume its gone away ? -ENOTIME The regression is still there in 2.6.23-rc3 (I just checked), but I haven't

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-08-17 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:19:40 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Unfortunately this breaks pata_pdc2027x on my PowerMac G3: > > > > Did this ever get resolved? > > All went quiet so I assume its gone away ? -ENOTIME The regression is still there in 2.6.23-rc3 (I just checked), but I haven't had time t

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-08-16 Thread Alan Cox
> > Unfortunately this breaks pata_pdc2027x on my PowerMac G3: > > Did this ever get resolved? All went quiet so I assume its gone away ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-08-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
Mikael Pettersson wrote: (cc:ing linuxppc-dev) On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:43:15 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as precise as it

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-16 Thread Albert Lee
Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:45:35 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: > >>So, it seems both mdelay(37) and do_gettimeofday() are working properly on >>PowerMac G3. >>Maybe the calculated wrong PLL input is due to wrong reading of the counter >>register? >>Could you please try the atta

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-11 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:45:35 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: > Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > > > > 2.6.22 + this prints the following on my G3: > > > > pata_pdc2027x :00:0e.0: version 0.9 > > usec_elapsed for mdelay(37) [35431] > > start time: [1184112028]s [775333]us > > end time: [1184112028]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-10 Thread Albert Lee
Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > 2.6.22 + this prints the following on my G3: > > pata_pdc2027x :00:0e.0: version 0.9 > usec_elapsed for mdelay(37) [35431] > start time: [1184112028]s [775333]us > end time: [1184112028]s [810764]us > pata_pdc2027x :00:0e.0: PLL input clock 1691741 kHz

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-10 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:52:59 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: > >>Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected > >>higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). > >>It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as precise as it > >>used to be. Per Alan's advice, HT

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-09 Thread Albert Lee
Mikael Pettersson wrote: > (cc:ing linuxppc-dev) > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:43:15 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: > >>Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected >>higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). >>It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as p

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-09 Thread Mikael Pettersson
(cc:ing linuxppc-dev) On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:43:15 +0800, Albert Lee wrote: > Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected > higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). > It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as precise as it > used to be. Per Ala

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-02 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: Hi, Could you also fix pdc202xx_new driver? "buggy" code should be very similar if not identical... I was going to do that but since I'm only working part-time in the last few days, this keeps being deferred. Also, I need to find the card... MBR, Ser

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-02 Thread Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Hi, Could you also fix pdc202xx_new driver? "buggy" code should be very similar if not identical... On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Albert Lee wrote: > Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected > higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). > It seems sometim

Re: [PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-07-02 Thread Jeff Garzik
Albert Lee wrote: Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as precise as it used to be. Per Alan's advice, HT or power management might affect the precision of

[PATCH 1/1] libata: pata_pdc2027x PLL input clock fix

2007-06-25 Thread Albert Lee
Recently the PLL input clock of pata_pdc2027x is sometimes detected higer than expected (e.g. 20.027 MHz compared to 16.714 MHz). It seems sometimes the mdelay() function is not as precise as it used to be. Per Alan's advice, HT or power management might affect the precision of mdelay(). This patc