On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > > You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
> > > do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much smaller.
> >
> > Until today you had a vaild point!
> >
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
> > do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much smaller.
>
> Until today you had a vaild point!
>
> Promise Ultra100TX2 (20268 chipset).
>
> This is a
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 21:30:24 -0700, Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You killed yourself
> >
> > You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
>
> You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
> do
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 21:30:24 -0700, Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You killed yourself
>
> You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much
You killed yourself
You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
You have now dived you clock timing in half.
You should expect to have a driver time out before the device is
completed.
--
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
ASL Kernel Development
You killed yourself
You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
You have now dived you clock timing in half.
You should expect to have a driver time out before the device is
completed.
--
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
ASL Kernel Development
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 21:30:24 -0700, Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You killed yourself
You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 21:30:24 -0700, Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You killed yourself
You do not have a host that will do idebus=66
You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
do justice to the
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much smaller.
Until today you had a vaild point!
Promise Ultra100TX2 (20268 chipset).
This is a 66MHz
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
You really ought to rename this parameter to pcibus. Even though it doesn't
do justice to the VLB bus, the potential for user error is much smaller.
Until today you had a vaild point!
Promise
Sorry for the null message, fingers slipped :(
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14
> > is about the most ominous message one can receive from the IDE driver:
> >
> > 1. it's not in English, so it doesn't tell you jack
>
> It tells you the chipset
--
--alessandro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linux: kernel 2.2.19/2.4.3p8 glibc-2.2 gcc-2.96-69 binutils-2.11.90.0.1
Oracle: Oracle8i 8.1.7.0.1 Enterprise Edition for Linux
motto: Tell the truth, there's less to remember.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
--
--alessandro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux: kernel 2.2.19/2.4.3p8 glibc-2.2 gcc-2.96-69 binutils-2.11.90.0.1
Oracle: Oracle8i 8.1.7.0.1 Enterprise Edition for Linux
motto: Tell the truth, there's less to remember.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Sorry for the null message, fingers slipped :(
Alan Cox wrote:
ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14
is about the most ominous message one can receive from the IDE driver:
1. it's not in English, so it doesn't tell you jack
It tells you the chipset doesnt
> ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14
> is about the most ominous message one can receive from the IDE driver:
>
> 1. it's not in English, so it doesn't tell you jack
It tells you the chipset doesnt support an IDE dma timeout handling function
(ie all it can do is reset
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:00:29 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Been running this configuration over more than 2 years now without such
>> major problems.
>> Could this be the cause?
>
> Quite possibly. There are reasons we ignore bug reports from overclockers
Perhaps. But,
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Frank Cornelis wrote:
> Hey,
>
> After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
> USE_DMA=1
> my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
[SNIPPED...]
>
> BTW: my motherboard runs at 112 Mhz, overclocked, was 100 Mhz.
> Been running this
Frank Cornelis wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
> USE_DMA=1
> my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
> again. For I while I though I'd lose some sectors because of this, I had
> to re-install my RedHat 7.0, had a not so
> After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
> USE_DMA=1
> my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
So you forced DMA on
> BTW: my motherboard runs at 112 Mhz, overclocked, was 100 Mhz.
and ran overclocked
> Been running this configuration over more than
After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
USE_DMA=1
my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
So you forced DMA on
BTW: my motherboard runs at 112 Mhz, overclocked, was 100 Mhz.
and ran overclocked
Been running this configuration over more than 2
Frank Cornelis wrote:
Hey,
After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
USE_DMA=1
my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
again. For I while I though I'd lose some sectors because of this, I had
to re-install my RedHat 7.0, had a not so productive
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Frank Cornelis wrote:
Hey,
After I did put in /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
USE_DMA=1
my system did crash very badly, I guess after my hard disks did wake up
[SNIPPED...]
BTW: my motherboard runs at 112 Mhz, overclocked, was 100 Mhz.
Been running this
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:00:29 +0100 (BST), Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Been running this configuration over more than 2 years now without such
major problems.
Could this be the cause?
Quite possibly. There are reasons we ignore bug reports from overclockers
Perhaps. But,
ide_dmaproc:
ide_dmaproc: chipset supported ide_dma_timeout func only: 14
is about the most ominous message one can receive from the IDE driver:
1. it's not in English, so it doesn't tell you jack
It tells you the chipset doesnt support an IDE dma timeout handling function
(ie all it can do is reset and
24 matches
Mail list logo
