All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dâniel Fraga" <fragabr@gmail.com>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ICH10 not working with AHCI kernel option
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:16:31 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4bbe9c12.1502be0a.0f89.1047@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <o2i51f3faa71004081952s68d4861w28b9b73da284c91d@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:52:34 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com> wrote:

> We can detect an AHCI-capable Intel chipsets (in most cases anyway),
> but problem is that a lot of systems with such chipsets, especially
> laptops, unfortunately have no way to actually put the controller into
> AHCI mode (no BIOS option for it). We could whine about it, but in a
> lot of cases there's not much that can be done about it..
> 
> Intel chipsets are pretty much the only ones that have the separate
> modes in the BIOS for AHCI - others like NVIDIA AHCI-compliant
> controllers support both legacy mode and AHCI in the same device,
> which is a lot more convenient in some ways..

	Yes, I agree completely!

	It's absurd that in plain XXI century, hardware makers still
default to legacy mode without a chance for the user to change that in
BIOS.

	I understand that Linus Torvalds complained about EFI some time
ago (http://kerneltrap.org/node/6884), citing it as "other Intel
brain-damage" but at least EFI would give a chance for the user to
interact better with the system than the limited, ugly and old "BIOS".

	When every motherboard maker adopt EFI, I hope this limitation
will go away. I can't understand why new Core i7 systems still use BIOS
instead of EFI.

-- 

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-09  3:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-08 13:36 ICH10 not working with AHCI kernel option Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 13:45 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 13:46   ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 13:59     ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 14:02       ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 14:09         ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 14:15           ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 23:54             ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09  2:00               ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-09  2:09                 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09  2:22                   ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-09  2:52                     ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09  3:16                       ` Dâniel Fraga [this message]
2010-04-09 10:12                       ` Tim Small
2010-04-09 14:47                         ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 15:07                           ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 16:37                             ` Tim Small
2010-04-09 18:53                               ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 23:04                               ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09  4:28                 ` Jeff Garzik
2010-04-09  9:16                 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09  9:08               ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09  9:12                 ` Dâniel Fraga

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4bbe9c12.1502be0a.0f89.1047@mx.google.com \
    --to=fragabr@gmail.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=hancockrwd@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.