From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: cached PCS Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 06:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <44D9BD06.5080103@garzik.org> References: <44D97F07.9000301@garzik.org> <44D9AF83.80507@gmail.com> <44D9B43A.9010807@garzik.org> <44D9B4BC.5050707@gmail.com> <44D9B87A.8020507@garzik.org> <44D9BB4B.9050602@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:56235 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030674AbWHIKqe (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2006 06:46:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44D9BB4B.9050602@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Keith Owens Tejun Heo wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> Tejun Heo wrote: >>>>> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>>> can you resurrect your cached PCS patch? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.6.18-rc didn't fix the ghost device and long boot delay problems >>>>>> for everybody. >>>>> >>>>> The cached PCS patch was to fix device detection failure on some >>>>> ICH5s where PCS is cleared while probing the first port. Remaining >>>>> ghost device and long boot delay are fixed by honor-PCS patch. Do >>>>> you want me to resurrect both? >>>> >>>> hrm. Maybe just honor-PCS? >>> >>> Yeap, we need to verify whether the less-jealous-PCS-update patch >>> cured the ICH5 problem. >> >> If you are talking about the patch currently in 2.6.18-rc, I got >> several ACKs that it fixed their problems. >> >> But OTOH, there was also >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115346292700002&r=1&w=2 > > I was talking about bugzilla bug #6724. > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6724 > > It was a weird case of ICH5 clearing PCS present bits while the first > port is being probed. The clearing happens during actual probe, that > is, the bits look okay till the end of the first prereset() but on entry > to prereset() for the second port, enabled bits are gone. IIRC, > bug#6724 is different from all other reports. > > I asked the reporter to test 2.6.18-rc4 and see whether the problem is > gone with new PCS handling. I'm a bit skeptical about the result. If > the problem remains with 2.6.18-rc4, we'll need that cached PCS to solve > that particular case. > > BTW, do you know what Keith Owen's chipset was? (Keith CC'd) I didn't see lspci output, but it looks like ICH5 from his drivers/ide dmesg output. Did you look at some of the other messages? He provided some debug traces in follow-up messages. Jeff