On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:41:22 +0900
Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Why can't libata do the right thing and just send IDENTIFY command
to the slave device first?
That's my plan B. I'm just not sure whether it would do any good, would it?
Should find
[cc'ing Mark, Bart and Sergei. Hi]
Alan wrote:
This makes unreliable cable detection even more unreliable. Please
consider for -stable. Thanks.
At minimum you also need to stop doing drive side detect for PATA_CBL_80
as many controllers don't do both so if you've got host side detect that
On Sunday 25 February 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
[cc'ing Mark, Bart and Sergei. Hi]
Alan wrote:
This makes unreliable cable detection even more unreliable. Please
consider for -stable. Thanks.
At minimum you also need to stop doing drive side detect for PATA_CBL_80
as many
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Why can't libata do the right thing and just send IDENTIFY command
to the slave device first?
That's my plan B. I'm just not sure whether it would do any good, would it?
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in
the body
According to Annex B of ATA/ATAPI-5, IDENTIFY should be issued to the
slave device first to ensure that it releases PDIAG- and then use the
cable detection result from the master device. As we IDENTIFY master
first right after reset, slave if present is driving PDIAG-, so the
master on
On Sunday 25 February 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Why can't libata do the right thing and just send IDENTIFY command
to the slave device first?
That's my plan B. I'm just not sure whether it would do any good, would it?
Probably it would but to know for sure
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:01:28 +0900
Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
80c test mask is at bits 18 and 19 of EIDE Controller Configuration
not 22 and 23. Fix it.
ACK - verified against data sheet.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in
the body of a
