On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Ed Sweetman wrote:
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Ed Sweetman wrote:I assume libata.atapi_enabled=1 is a boot arg, not some structure member
Alan Cox wrote:Currently you need to use libata.atapi_enabled=1
On Maw, 2006-01-24 at 01:43 -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:Intriguing, when I had no ide chipset compiled in kernel, only libata
problem. The problem is that there appears to be two nvidia/amd ataThe goal of the drivers/scsi/pata_* drivers is to replace drivers/ide in
drivers and I'm unsure which I should try using, if i compile both in,
which get loaded first (i assume scsi is second to ide) and if i want my
pata disks loaded under the new libata drivers, will my cdrom work under
them too, or do i still need some sort of regular ide drivers loaded
just for cdrom (to use native ata mode for recording access).
its entirity with code using the newer and cleaner libata logic. There
is still much to do but my SIL680, SiS, Intel MPIIX, AMD and VIA boxes
are using libata and the additional patch patches still queued
1. Atapi is most definitely not supported by libata, right now.It works in the -mm tree.
drivers, I got no mention at all about my dvd writer. I even had the
scsi cd driver installed and generic devices, still nothing seemed to
initialize the dvd drive. It detected the second pata bus but no
devices attached to it.
this is using the kernel mentioned in the subject header.
2.6.16-rc1-mm2. using the amd/nvidia drivers for pata and sata.
Is there anything i can do to give more info to the list to figure out
why my atapi writer is being ignored by pata even when there are no ide
drivers loaded?
(assuming that libata is in the kernel image, not a loadable module).
I just built/tested this also, working for me as well.
(hard drives, not ATAPI)
in the source for the pata driver that i need to set to 1, correct?
Yes, it's a kernel boot option if libata is in the kernel image.
If libata is a loadable module, just use something like
modprobe libata atapi_enabled=1
And you just built and tested it, how did you test if the atapi argument
worked when you then say "not ATAPI" as something you tested?
Sorry, I mean that I built and booted a kernel with libata/PATA
hard drive (vs. legacy drivers/ide/ PATA support). I have not
tested ATAPI at all and didn't mean to imply that I had.
I reported on libata.atapi_enabled=1 based on documentation
and other emails that I have read.
In any case, i'll try out libata.atapi_enabled=1 and see if it detects
the dvd drive.
HTH. Please continue to post any questions or problems.