Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:01:30 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: FUD or FACTS ?? but a new FLAME! |
| |
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Andre Hedrick wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > >>I apology for flames Andre, after some thinking I came to > >>conclusion that if speaking hardware you are generally right. > >> > >>I hope we can together resolve transport layer issues in 2.5. > > > > > > Bartlomiej, > > > > Thanks, and we worked well in the past togather, and there has never been > > a communication problem with you. > > > > Lets hope so, and please change the maintainer file to your name. > > As you were in mind in the past to replace me when I burned out. > > O co chodzi? Po prostu powinno się przenieść dwa typy host chipów > intela do kategori - "może działa jak chcesz to spróbuj":
Chodzi o to, zeby wreszcie rozwiazac niektore problemy z 2.5 n.p. multi PIO...
> > Ulf Axelsson to wszystko dawno już rozwiązał: > > Hi Martin! > > (Note: This mail (and myself) is intentionally _NOT_ intended to go anywhere > near linux-kernel and the regular flame fests. I'm as anonymous as one can > be ;-)
No longer ;-) Perpare for flames ;)
> > I have been reading the stuff about the difference between ATA/100 and > ATA/133 talking about clock cycles, buffer sizes, transmission directions > and what not and were quite unable to understand what the point was until I > looked at the public Intel ICH4 spec (the one available to us mortals > without connections :-) > > ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/manuals/29860002.pdf > > Intel do state that the ICH4/82801DB supports only ATA/100 not ATA/133. > Looking through some reviews on the net on the 845E/G they do say the same > thing. > > In the light of that perhaps the code in drivers/ide/piix.c stating that the > ICH4 does ATA/133 is a bit optimistic and should be moved to the "try it if > you want to " CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PIIX_TRY133 option. > > Of course Vojtek might have better info that says otherwise. > > <<<CUTOUT>>> > static struct piix_ide_chip { > unsigned short id; > unsigned char flags; > } piix_ide_chips[] = { > { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801DB_9, PIIX_UDMA_133 | > PIIX_PINGPONG }, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > /* Intel 82801DB ICH4 */ > { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801CA_11, PIIX_UDMA_100 | > PIIX_PINGPONG }, > /* Intel 82801CA ICH3/ICH3-S */ > { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801CA_10, PIIX_UDMA_100 | > PIIX_PINGPONG }, > /* Intel 82801CAM ICH3-M */ > { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9, PIIX_UDMA_100 | > PIIX_PINGPONG }, > <<<CUTOUT>>> > > Things would be easier if "you know who" could just say that according to > public specs the ICH4 does not support ATA/133 instead of all that technical > talk...... >
So, we should change it...
...and simple idea how to deal with overclocking IDE chipsets -> try best we can but put some nice fat warning to user that he will probably get screwed due to running chipset out of specification...
> Regards, > Ulf > > PS. It would be kind if you could tell me where the source to the new > ide-info version you talked about can be found?
http://home.elka.pw.edu.pl/~bzolnier/atapci
- 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/
| |