Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 10 August 2016 at 15:41, David Milburn wrote: > Hi, > > The 168 makes AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ equal to 2816 > > AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = AHCI_CMD_TBL_HDR_SZ + (AHCI_MAX_SG * 16) > AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = 128 + (168 * 16) > > I think if you add in AHCI_CMD_SLOT_SZ (1024) and AHCI_RX_FIS_SZ

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 10 August 2016 at 15:41, David Milburn wrote: > Hi, > > The 168 makes AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ equal to 2816 > > AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = AHCI_CMD_TBL_HDR_SZ + (AHCI_MAX_SG * 16) > AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = 128 + (168 * 16) > > I think if you add in AHCI_CMD_SLOT_SZ (1024) and AHCI_RX_FIS_SZ (256) > the DMA is 4K

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 08/10/2016 12:19 PM, Tom Yan wrote: On 10 August 2016 at 15:41, David Milburn wrote: Hi, The 168 makes AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ equal to 2816 AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = AHCI_CMD_TBL_HDR_SZ + (AHCI_MAX_SG * 16) AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = 128 + (168 * 16) I think if you add in AHCI_CMD_SLOT_SZ

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 08/10/2016 12:19 PM, Tom Yan wrote: On 10 August 2016 at 15:41, David Milburn wrote: Hi, The 168 makes AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ equal to 2816 AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = AHCI_CMD_TBL_HDR_SZ + (AHCI_MAX_SG * 16) AHCI_CMD_TBL_SZ = 128 + (168 * 16) I think if you add in AHCI_CMD_SLOT_SZ (1024) and

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a Is that referring to the maximum number of entries allowed in the PRDT, Physical Region Descriptor Table (which is, more precisely, 65535)? > lower limit of 168

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a Is that referring to the maximum number of entries allowed in the PRDT, Physical Region Descriptor Table (which is, more precisely, 65535)? > lower limit of 168 most likely

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hello, Tom. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:04:10PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a > > Is that referring to the maximum number of entries allowed in the > PRDT, Physical

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hello, Tom. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:04:10PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a > > Is that referring to the maximum number of entries allowed in the > PRDT, Physical Region Descriptor

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hi, On 08/10/2016 10:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, Tom. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:04:10PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a Is that referring to the maximum number of

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hi, On 08/10/2016 10:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, Tom. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:04:10PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: On 10 August 2016 at 11:26, Tejun Heo wrote: Hmmm.. why not? The hardware limit is 64k and the driver is using a Is that referring to the maximum number of entries allowed in

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hello, Tom. On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 10:10:17PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > So the (not so) recent bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS from 1024 to 2560 > (commit d2be537c3ba3) seemed to have caused trouble to some of the ATA > devices, which were then worked around with ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024. > >

Re: Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

Hello, Tom. On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 10:10:17PM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > So the (not so) recent bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS from 1024 to 2560 > (commit d2be537c3ba3) seemed to have caused trouble to some of the ATA > devices, which were then worked around with ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024. > >

Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

So the (not so) recent bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS from 1024 to 2560 (commit d2be537c3ba3) seemed to have caused trouble to some of the ATA devices, which were then worked around with ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024. However, I am suspecting that the bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS is not the "real" cause

Regarding AHCI_MAX_SG and (ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024)

So the (not so) recent bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS from 1024 to 2560 (commit d2be537c3ba3) seemed to have caused trouble to some of the ATA devices, which were then worked around with ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024. However, I am suspecting that the bump of BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS is not the "real" cause