[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 trashed my system
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Mike Isely wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> Okay that sounds more like it. The driver did not damage the data, only
> user space forced down the driver trashed it. Regardless of the
> definition of "is" you system was wrecked.

No permanent harm. It was a workstation, and most of the 160GB drive
was being used primarily as a backup device for a separate file server
machine. Obviously I'd like to get that "backup device" up and running

> >
> > > Linux failed to understand cut off partitions.
> >
> > ???
> This was a great concern of mine when 48-bit was introduced.

Ah, a riddle answered with another riddle. I know what 48 bit addresing
is; I'm just curious to understand why my system seems to have run afoul
of it, especially since things were ok before. (but read on...)

> > What are the "rules of Promise" or where may I find such information?
> You do not want to sign the NDA's to get the data sheets, aquire all the
> hardware to test, generate tables of irregularities, query Promise, and
> then scratch your head why.

OK, Uncle! I detect a lot of pain here and perhaps I'm exacerbating it
by asking. The technical side of me just wants to understand. I write
code for a living and have had my share of pain with crappy hardware
(though nothing even close to the scale at which you are working). I
hate I2C, by the way, and don't ever ask me about the P.O.S. Philips

> I have a FastTrak 100 TX4 the BIOS fails to see beyond 128GB, but in
> practice it does.
> The PDC20267 will puke in 48-bit DMA, but run clean in 48-bit PIO :-/
> Oh but that is the primary channel, Seconday Channel is clean both ways :-\

Oh goodie. This can't be by design, but rather by stupid
implementation. But I'll stop now before aggravating your ulcer :-)

> PDC20262 works in 48-bit DMA every where.
> PDC20265 similar to PDC20267 except yours.

But I'd still like to understand why my PDC20265 seems unique. Earlier
hardware rev? Later hardware rev? Promise BIOS issue? The Asus
A7V-266E motherboard was purchased December 2001. If it's any help, I'm
staring at the chip on the board now. The label shows:

(C) 2000-0113

Maybe there is another cleaner way to go at this problem.

> Rules are emperical tests and rants back at the OEM, and ....

Sounds to me like you need a vacation ;-)

> >
> > But this wasn't a problem in 2.4.19-ac4; what confounding factor now is
> > making it difficult?
> Cause there were reports of PDC20265/PDC20267 comming in as deadlocking.
> Thanks for the wrinkle in the fabric of ruleless world. :-)

You're welcome :-)


| Mike Isely | PGP fingerprint
POSITIVELY NO | | 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92
UNSOLICITED JUNK MAIL! | isely @ pobox (dot) com | 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8
| (spam-foiling address) |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.098 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site