[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IDE cdrom problem with PLEXTOR DVDR PX-608AL
Hi Boris,

> Well, this sounds strange. Are you sure you're entering the boot options
> correctly on the kernel command line? Which is your boot loader? I just booted
> my machine with 'hdc=noprobe' (hdc is my cdrom drive) and here's what i get:
> ...
> [ 0.304774] Probing IDE interface ide0...
> [ 0.569359] hdb: SAMSUNG SP2014N, ATA DISK drive
> [ 0.613977] Switched to NOHz mode on CPU #1
> [ 0.773368] Switched to NOHz mode on CPU #0
> [ 0.874486] hda: QUANTUM FIREBALLlct10 20, ATA DISK drive
> [ 0.874506] hda: host max PIO4 wanted PIO255(auto-tune) selected PIO4
> [ 0.874506] hda: drive side 80-wire cable detection failed, limiting max speed to UDMA33
> [ 0.874506] hda: UDMA/33 mode selected
> [ 0.874533] hdb: host max PIO4 wanted PIO255(auto-tune) selected PIO4
> [ 0.874620] hdb: UDMA/100 mode selected
> [ 0.874744] Probing IDE interface ide1...

> so it seems you should check whether your kernel is receiving the 'hda=noprobe'
> boot option at all, or something along that path is going wrong...

I'm entering the option 'hda=noprobe' (as one example) right after my boot
label in LILO. The dmesg output I attached last time was a boot of straight
2.6.25-rc2 without any options; I've attached 'dmesg.noprobe.out' which is
the result of a boot with 'hda=noprobe'.

I must have done something stupid, but I can't see what; if you look at this
line from the dmesg output:

Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=linux_2.6.25rc2 ro root=900
md=0,/dev/sda5,/dev/sdb5 hda=noprobe

... it would suggest the option 'hda=noprobe' was entered correctly?

> > I tried to apply the patch but failed; I probably did something wrong.
> > I deleted everything in your message above 'Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c'
> > and ran 'patch --dry-run -b -p1 < ../bart_patch'. This is part of my script
> > log:
> are you sure you're _really_ using 2.6.25-rc2? Applying the patch against that
> kernel works just fine, no fuzziness or even rejects. Care to try out on a fresh
> kernel source tarball? After all, building a kernel with your quad core cpu won't
> take that long :-) when using make -j8 or something in that order.

Heh. This is my first new machine in 8 years, and I couldn't wait to start
using multiple cores. I was quick to discover the '-j' option ... but I only
do '-j 4'. Anyway ... I'd downloaded the full baseline linux-2.6.24.tar.bz2,
unpacked it, and then ran the patch patch-2.6.25-rc2.bz2 against it. That
patch ran perfectly. And I was in the right directory when I ran Bart's patch,
as I listed in my earlier e-mail! All indications were that I was running the
2.6.25-rc2 kernel as required, I thought.

Well, I see that rc3 is out; maybe I'll give that a shot.

[unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-25 06:59    [W:0.081 / U:31.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site