On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:27:08AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Actually the FILO polled IDE derives most directly from etherboot 5.1. > > There are a couple of small differences but nothing that looked too > substantial. The biggest is the ide_bus_floating() that attempts to > quickly see if an IDE cable is absent.
Yes, I took it from Etherboot 5.1. I added floating bus detection, and also changed the soft reset code to see if the drive asserts BSY. > FILO does look good from what I have seen of it. I'm really glad to hear that from you. > Before anyone can guess anything we need a lot more detailed bug > report than what has been seen so far. > > Steve how does your 1.2G Caviar fail? Is it not detected or is the > problem something else? I think his problem is something related with geometry. Not with detection. I thought I had a similar WD drive in my junk box, and I looked for it today, without success. Instead I've found a 250MB Conner(!) drive, and it worked perfectly with FILO! > SONE do you really have a system that with no IDE disk has the BSY bit > stuck high. Or is that just what happens when you scan PIO ports that > are not connected to and IDE controller. On EPIA the BSY bit is low when drive is absent, and it is the only real hardware I run FILO. However, it helps quickly skipping the non-existent 3rd and 4th IDE controllers, as you pointed out. -- Takeshi _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
