Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:20:55 +0100 | | From | Padraig Brady <> | | Subject | Re: Compact flash disk and slave drives in 2.4.2 |
| |
Can I just confirm that I'm seeing the same thing. I'm using a pcengines compact flash adapter which has a master/slave jumper, and this seems to confirm what I thought, I.E. slaves are OK. Note I also had trouble where HD was master and flashdisk was slave, where again the CF was silently ignored.
Padraig.
Richard Smith wrote:
> I spent most of the day today trying to track down why the embedded system I am working > on would not recognize hdb on boot. It refused to show in the devices list even though I > specifically told the kernel it existed with the hdb=c,h,s option. > > After working on what seemed like a hardware problem for quite a while I finally decided > that there must be something flaky in the ide driver code and began to add some debug > printk's > > In which I found the following in ide.c: > > /* > * CompactFlash cards and their brethern pretend to be removable hard disks, > * except: > * (1) they never have a slave unit, and > * (2) they don't have doorlock mechanisms. > * This test catches them, and is invoked elsewhere when setting appropriate > * config bits. > * > */ > > Since hda in my system is a CompactFlash card I began to look further and then with some > discovered the following in ide-probe.c > > /* > * Prevent long system lockup probing later for non-existant > * slave drive if the hwif is actually a flash memory card of some variety: > */ > if (drive_is_flashcard(drive)) { > ide_drive_t *mate = &HWIF(drive)->drives[1^drive->select.b.unit]; > if (!mate->ata_flash) { > mate->present = 0; > ide_drive_t *mate = &HWIF(drive)->drives[1^drive->select.b.unit] > mate->noprobe = 1; > } > } > > Now perhaps I am just way out on the wacky edge of things but I don't agree with the > above in the slightest. We use CF's in conjunction with slaves all the time. Almost all > of our embedded devices boot from CF's and I routinely add a HD as a slave to the system > to do developement with but it's always been under DOS. > > I comment out the check above and all is well... hdb shows up as expected. > > Can someone explain to me why the above check was added and if its continued existence is > necessary? Whats this long system lockup thing mentioned? > > Even if there is some danger of a long lockup I suggest that at least a message that its > ignoring hdb is the least it could do rather than sliently ignoreing it. Especially when > I specifically told it a hdb existed via the command line. Shouldn't command line > parameters take precidence? > > I not subscribed to the kernel-list so please copy me in the response. > > Thanks. > > > -- > Richard A. Smith ras2@tant.com > "I'd hang out with science kids - they can blow things up! > I mean, what's cooler than that?" > - Tori Amos > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |