On 2/22/07, Paul Rolland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I dont think there is one or that this reply of yours could cause it :P
Just to add my $0.02 on this point : this could also be one of the problem
I'm facing on my machine right now, but the point is that Windows supports
it
Hello,
> The first one got some debate as if it was legal to have a slave
> without a master and all and the last thing I saw written on this
> email that we (that is, the linux developers and the maintainers, I
> dont code anything other than 'Hello world' and even that might
> segfault) should
Hello,
The first one got some debate as if it was legal to have a slave
without a master and all and the last thing I saw written on this
email that we (that is, the linux developers and the maintainers, I
dont code anything other than 'Hello world' and even that might
segfault) should
On 2/22/07, Paul Rolland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
please no flame war
I dont think there is one or that this reply of yours could cause it :P
Just to add my $0.02 on this point : this could also be one of the problem
I'm facing on my machine right now, but the point is that
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But serious, The second "abnormal" error "ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on
port 0xF88597DF", I got feedback from, by Tejun. He confirmed that, as
I thought, this was a cosmectic error messages for "No devices found".
I get 0x7F, but already knew it
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the latter case it might explain why you see one master connected
to one bus and a slave to the other. If you use legacy SATA mode you
should just see drive 0 and drive 1.
Oh and! In
On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to:
http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html
From: Patrick Ale
Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST
Sorry
Yea, I know.. I mail too much.. too much time at hands
Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to:
http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html
From: Patrick Ale
Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST
Sorry
--
Vincent Legoll
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
I logged:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8051
That is looking very similar to what this thread is about.
But the fact that this bites on a laptop, where you cannot
modify cabling/jumpering of the drives is annoying.
The drive is even properly recognized when booting from
a cd
I logged:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8051
That is looking very similar to what this thread is about.
But the fact that this bites on a laptop, where you cannot
modify cabling/jumpering of the drives is annoying.
The drive is even properly recognized when booting from
a cd
Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to:
http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html
From: Patrick Ale
Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST
Sorry
--
Vincent Legoll
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to:
http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html
From: Patrick Ale
Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST
Sorry
Yea, I know.. I mail too much.. too much time at hands
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the latter case it might explain why you see one master connected
to one bus and a slave to the other. If you use legacy SATA mode you
should just see drive 0 and drive 1.
Oh and! In
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But serious, The second abnormal error ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on
port 0xF88597DF, I got feedback from, by Tejun. He confirmed that, as
I thought, this was a cosmectic error messages for No devices found.
I get 0x7F, but already knew it was
Patrick Ale wrote:
ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on port 0xF88597DF
Maybe this is purely a cosmetic error where the error code can be
translated to something like "no drive attached" or maybe the drivers
assume you always configure a master drive on a controller, which
doesnt always have to be the
Robert Hancock wrote:
Having a single drive on the channel configured as slave is not really a
legal configuration.
Sure it is. Not ideal, but "legal" in every respect,
and suprisingly common "in the wild" since the early 1990s.
(I believe the ATA standards say that it's
something that a
Robert Hancock wrote:
Having a single drive on the channel configured as slave is not really a
legal configuration.
Sure it is. Not ideal, but legal in every respect,
and suprisingly common in the wild since the early 1990s.
(I believe the ATA standards say that it's
something that a host
Patrick Ale wrote:
ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on port 0xF88597DF
Maybe this is purely a cosmetic error where the error code can be
translated to something like no drive attached or maybe the drivers
assume you always configure a master drive on a controller, which
doesnt always have to be the
On 2/11/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
> just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
> set as slave with no master present.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
> just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
> set as slave with no master present.
I have seen at least three *thousand* boxes configured that way in
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Patrick Ale wrote:
Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
set
Patrick Ale wrote:
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
> Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
>
> I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
> idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
> configured.
>
> In
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
> Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
>
> I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
> idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
> configured.
>
> In this case on ATA2 I
Patrick Ale wrote:
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave.
ATA: abnormal status 0x7F
Hi,
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave.
ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0x177
Hi,
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave.
ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0x177
Patrick Ale wrote:
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave.
ATA: abnormal status 0x7F
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this case on ATA2 I have a
Patrick Ale wrote:
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
Something unrelated to the tests I am doing.
I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the
idea that you might have a controller without a master drive
configured.
In this
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Ale wrote:
Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
set as
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
set as slave with no master present.
I have seen at least three *thousand* boxes configured that way in the
On 2/11/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's
just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's
set as slave with no master present.
32 matches
Mail list logo
