Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup libata HPA support | From | Ben Collins <> | Date | Wed, 09 May 2007 08:29:30 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 08:46 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > Ben Collins wrote: > > The original HPA patch that Kyle worked on has gone into current git > > without some fixes that we worked through late in the Ubuntu feisty > > release. Here's the main copy of the notes I sent to Alan a few weeks > > ago in regards to the original patch, and a repatch against current git > > to fix things up. Note we have released feisty with the patch attached > > (albeit we have HPA enabled by default), and we have not had any reports > > directly attributed to it. However, in gutsy (devel for next release, > > based on current stock linux-2.6.git), we are already seeing reports of > > the same issues we already fixed. > > > > The issues we saw were mainly that some controllers didn't return the > > correct size from the SET_MAX command (sata_nv is a good example). So I > > added a re IDENTIFY after the SET_MAX, and compared all the numbers. If > > re-id was correct, but return value from SET_MAX wasn't we print a > > warning and use the IDENTIFY value regardless (since that's what the > > device is going to use). > > > > Because we re IDENTIFY, there was also no need to keep n_sectors_boot > > around, so that was removed. The ata_hpa_resize() was changed to handle > > everything in a single call (checks for HPA support of the device, and > > whether ignore_hpa is set or not), and it also sets dev->n_sectors > > before returning. > > > > So far with this patch, we were able to fix all the problems we were > > seeing with it (except the sata_nv issue where we had to revert to not > > using adma for NO_DATA transactions, already reported to libata-dev). > > We've not had any reports of further problems. > > That sata_nv issue should not be present anymore in the current > libata-dev tree.
That's correct, it is not, at least the machine exception problem isn't. However, the incorrect returns from SET_MAX are still an issue with that hw. No idea what is causing it.
-- Ubuntu : http://www.ubuntu.com/ Linux1394: http://wiki.linux1394.org/
- 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/
| |