On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 02:40:50AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> The binary search shows that the following patch needs to be reverted:
> - ata66 = (!(tmpbyte & ata66mask)) ? 0 : 1;
> + ata66 = (!(tmpbyte & ata66mask)) ? 1 : 0;
> As far as I can see, this patch doesn't correspond anyhow with other
> changes, so I believe that the above change might have been unintended.
The change does correspond to the comment directly above that code:
/*
* Ultra66 cable detection (from Host View)
* m5229, 0x4a, bit0: primary, bit1: secondary 80 pin
*
* 0x4a, bit0 is 0 => primary channel
* has 80-pin (from host view)
*
* 0x4a, bit1 is 0 => secondary channel
* has 80-pin (from host view)
*/
So, either this comment is wrong, or the patch is correct.
I think the problem is that your revision of the 1543 doesn't
know about UDMA66, and so doesn't implement 80 pin detection.
Unfortunately it sets the detection bit to 0 (which is a reasonable
default for an unused bit... ;-) ) and the code missinterprets it.
So either we need another if(m5229_revision < or > something... ),
or we need some other way to detect validity of the 80pin detecion bits.
Perhaps this code can be completely deleted, because exactly the same
occurs some lines above, inside of a m5229_revision >= 0xC2 condition.
> Reverting this patch on 2.4.0-test1 fixes all the problems. UDMA is
> supported for the hard drive.
Yes, but it may break for people with UDMA66-capable boards but without
80pin cables.
> revision C1
That one is common to all the people having the 'no partion table' problem.
Does someone have specifications about the ali chips? I don't want to
submit a patch just because it works for me.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST