Bill Davidsen wrote:As far as I can see, if you are getting that low a speed, you have other problems. I have a system with old slow drives which are really on a 40 pin cable, and they run at UDMA(33). One of the experts in this can undoubtedly tell us more, but your system should run faster than that, mine does, and I really HAVE a 40 pin cable (and drive).
Stephen Clark wrote:I have had problems with cable detection on my previous laptop and my current laptop. It almost made
Bill Davidsen wrote:The statement is completely correct, even though the detection may not be. ;-)
Alan Cox wrote:That would be true if the 40 wire detection was 100% accurate!
Far better to have a drive which works slowly than one which works unreliably.it seems broken to manipulate xfer_mask after returning from the driver's ->mode_filter hook.I actually suggested that order because the only way the printk can be
this patch is more than just a speed-limited warning printk, afaics
done correctly is for it to be the very last test made. Since the mode
filter is not told what mode will be used but just subtracts modes that
are not allowed this should be safe.
With the current set(s) of patches to do better detection, cable evaluation should be better. But even if not, a slow system is more useful than one which doesn't work, crashes because of swap i/o errors, etc.
my systems unusable. On my current laptop I was getting a thruput of a little over 1 mbps instead
of the 44 mbps I get with udma set to the correct value. It took hours to upgrade my laptop from
fc5 to fc6 because of this mis detection.