Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-24 Thread Nathan A. Ferch
I have similar problems with an IBM-DTLA-305020 and the HPT-366 on a ABIT BP6. I'm not sure what the BIOS version is, i'll check it once i return home. Changing to udma3 seems to fix the problems. However i can always pass partition check fine. On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 01:29:51PM +, David Wood

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > No, if it doesn not hang and we get iCRC errors it will down grade > > automatically, but it is a transfer rate issue than it must be hard coded > > to force an upper threshold limit. > > Do we downgra

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Hakan Lennestal
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mohammad A. Haque" writes: > I read somewhere that hpt366 bios 1.26 will fix the problem with this > particular drive. I'll try and dig up the reference. From the 1.26beta bios redame-file (at http://www.highpoint-tech.com) 1.26.0 08Aug00 . Fix c

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Mohammad A. Haque
I read somewhere that hpt366 bios 1.26 will fix the problem with this particular drive. I'll try and dig up the reference. David Woodhouse wrote: > > WorksForMe(tm) > > Grrr. I specifically went and read the HPT366 blacklist before buying my > shiny new hard drive. > --

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Does that fix it? WorksForMe(tm) Grrr. I specifically went and read the HPT366 blacklist before buying my shiny new hard drive. > On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Index: drivers/ide/hpt366.c > > ===

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote: > No, if it doesn not hang and we get iCRC errors it will down grade > automatically, but it is a transfer rate issue than it must be hard coded > to force an upper threshold limit. Do we downgrade gracefully, or do we just drop directly to non-DMA mode?

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Andre Hedrick
Does that fix it? On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > When it comes to the partition detection during bootup, udma4 or > > udma3 doesn't seem to matter. It passes approx. one out of ten times > > either way. > > How have you made it use udma3 at bootu

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote: > The way I understood Hakan was: "it boots in udma4, and if it gets all > the way to userland I immediately hdparm it down to udma3, and then it > works fine". No, if it doesn not hang and we get iCRC errors it will down grade automatically, but it is

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread David Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > When it comes to the partition detection during bootup, udma4 or > udma3 doesn't seem to matter. It passes approx. one out of ten times > either way. How have you made it use udma3 at bootup? Something like the patch below? Index: drivers/ide/hpt366.c ===

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Hakan Lennestal
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Samuelson writes: > The way I understood Hakan was: "it boots in udma4, and if it gets all > the way to userland I immediately hdparm it down to udma3, and then it > works fine". > > Hakan, is this what you meant? If so, forcing it <= udma3 should be ok. Y

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Peter Samuelson
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Udma3 seem to be rock solid though as long as it manages to pass > > the partition detection during boot up. [David Woodhouse] > If it falls over at udma3, perhaps we should blacklist it all the way > down to udma2? The way I understood Hakan was: "it boots in udma4, a

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread David Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > 2.2.x and 2.4.0-xxx, do not share the same interrupt pin hack. > Add the above stub to ide-pci.c near or at line 756 to look like 2.2, > then retry and see if it fixes it. Then you bitch at Linus, not me, > because it is a functional kludge, but a "kludge". But:

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Hakan Lennestal
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Woodhouse writes: > You mean this? > > hde: timeout waiting for DMA > ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14 Indeed. > I see identical hangs when I have a similar IBM-DTLA drive attached > anywhere on the HPT366. But I al

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread David Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Nov 21 08:08:40 t kernel: hde: IBM-DTLA-307030, ATA DISK drive > Nov 21 08:08:40 t kernel: hde: hde1 hde2 < hde5 > And then after a while it gets a DMA timeout and hangs hard. You mean this? hde: timeout waiting for DMA ide_dmaproc: chipset supp

Re: 2.4.0, test10, test11: HPT366 problem

2000-11-21 Thread Andre Hedrick
2.2.x and 2.4.0-xxx, do not share the same interrupt pin hack. This is in 2.2.x patches. printk("%s: onboard version of chipset, pin1=%d pin2=%d\n", d->name, pin1, pin2); #if 1 /* I forgot why I did this once, but it fixed something. */ pci_write_config_byte(dev2, PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN, dev->irq);