Fixed now and working on it..
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, T. Yamada wrote:
>
> > Both disks claim support for the Host Protected Area feature set.
> > No doubt early disks had firmware flaws.
>
> So it's yet another "borken hardware"... Is there anything like
> SCSI "blacklist" for IDE driver?
Andries,
Don't you mean
(drive->id->cfs_enable_1 & 0x0400) word85
and not
(drive->id->command_set_1 & 0x0400) word82
Because when bit 10 of word 85 is not set then clip or HPArea is not enabled.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux
Andries,
Don't you mean
(drive-id-cfs_enable_1 0x0400) word85
and not
(drive-id-command_set_1 0x0400) word82
Because when bit 10 of word 85 is not set then clip or HPArea is not enabled.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development,
Fixed now and working on it..
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, T. Yamada wrote:
Both disks claim support for the Host Protected Area feature set.
No doubt early disks had firmware flaws.
So it's yet another "borken hardware"... Is there anything like
SCSI "blacklist" for IDE driver? Then it
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
>
> > Well, I could patch it so it adds that one sector ;-) But that's not the
> > right way. The true number of sectors is 90069840, since 90069839 doesn't
> > divide by the number of *real* heads (6) and the
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Well, I could patch it so it adds that one sector ;-) But that's not the
> right way. The true number of sectors is 90069840, since 90069839 doesn't
> divide by the number of *real* heads (6) and the number of recording zones
> (15). So it needs fixing.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
>
> > > > This patch is not good...[snip]
> > >
> > > Please retest with hdc=...
> >
> > Ok, I've booted without the parameter, and without the jumper on
> > clipping mode (I'll do it tommorow, it's 1AM now) got something
> > similiar to what you've
> > Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
> > IDE-patch from http://www.linux-ide.org/ applied) to add support
> > for IDE disk larger than 32GB, even if the disk required "clipping"
> > to reduce apparent disk size due to BIOS limitation.
>
> This patch is not good.
The original was good, but the changes made to do the callout fail to
return structs that need to be filled. This is my fault.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
>
> > Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
> > IDE-patch
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
> Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
> IDE-patch from http://www.linux-ide.org/ applied) to add support
> for IDE disk larger than 32GB, even if the disk required "clipping"
> to reduce apparent disk size due to BIOS
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
IDE-patch from http://www.linux-ide.org/ applied) to add support
for IDE disk larger than 32GB, even if the disk required "clipping"
to reduce apparent disk size due to BIOS limitation.
The original was good, but the changes made to do the callout fail to
return structs that need to be filled. This is my fault.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
IDE-patch from
Earlier this month, I had sent in a patch to 2.2.18pre17 (with
IDE-patch from http://www.linux-ide.org/ applied) to add support
for IDE disk larger than 32GB, even if the disk required "clipping"
to reduce apparent disk size due to BIOS limitation.
This patch is not good. It
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Taisuke Yamada wrote:
This patch is not good...[snip]
Please retest with hdc=...
Ok, I've booted without the parameter, and without the jumper on
clipping mode (I'll do it tommorow, it's 1AM now) got something
similiar to what you've written, and
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
Well, I could patch it so it adds that one sector ;-) But that's not the
right way. The true number of sectors is 90069840, since 90069839 doesn't
divide by the number of *real* heads (6) and the number of recording zones
(15). So it needs fixing.
15 ==
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote:
Well, I could patch it so it adds that one sector ;-) But that's not the
right way. The true number of sectors is 90069840, since 90069839 doesn't
divide by the number of *real* heads (6) and the number of
Taisuke,
After some changes in the code to conform to the near final taskfile
solution, it is called CONFIG_IDEDISK_STROKE.
It is in the latest patch for 2.2.17 published on kernel.org but I forgot
to remove a blocking stub in ide-disk.c
Please try it and comment offline for now.
Cheers,
On
Taisuke,
After some changes in the code to conform to the near final taskfile
solution, it is called CONFIG_IDEDISK_STROKE.
It is in the latest patch for 2.2.17 published on kernel.org but I forgot
to remove a blocking stub in ide-disk.c
Please try it and comment offline for now.
Cheers,
On
18 matches
Mail list logo
