From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [Fwd: [BUG] sata_via doesn't detect anymore my disks (broken between rc1 and rc3)] Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:24:46 +0900 Message-ID: <44F30ABE.2050803@gmail.com> References: <44E37BD4.8010709@pobox.com> <44E46E0E.4060703@gmail.com> <44EB32AD.1080305@gmail.com> <44EEEA29.1010008@gmail.com> <20060825135540.GE21866@htj.dyndns.org> <44EF1158.1040507@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:3474 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751064AbWH1PYw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:24:52 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id n25so2518079pyg for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Vignaud Cc: Jeff Garzik , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" Thierry Vignaud wrote: > Tejun Heo writes: > >>>>> The second patch is essentially identical to what you did the >>>>> one liner. Can you please check it once more? I'll prepare >>>>> old-sequence hardreset in the meantime. >>>> Okay, here's the old-sequence hardreset patch. This should have >>>> the highest chance of working. This patch should be applied on >>>> top of the vt6420 patch. >>> On top of which patch? >>> I just tried to apply it on top of: >>> - your last week patch >>> - your two patches of this week >>> and it does *not* apply on top of anyone... >> Arghh... Sorry. I sent the wrong version. This patch is against >> #upstream while I should have sent the one against #upstream-fixes. >> >>> Couldn't you either check first your patch or (better) just send a >>> patch against vanilla 2.6.18-rc4-mm2? >> I've attached whole sata_via.c to the other mail. I think that should >> do the trick. > > It didn't (tested by overwriting 2.6.18-rc4-mm2's driver). > I tried a few reset methods combinations w/os success. > Like in other faillure cases, the driver saw the two links but failed > to see the hd attached to the second sata link. Hmmm.. That's very weird. The detection sequence is almost identical to the original code. Argh..... Any ideas? -- tejun