From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: sata_sis only recognizing primary drive in 2.6.18 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:14:57 +0900 Message-ID: <453C25A1.5010208@gmail.com> References: <20061006065816.GA5782@jim.sh> <45263683.408@gmx.net> <45287D85.1050302@gmail.com> <453A8B66.8080302@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:61813 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187AbWJWCPH (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:15:07 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o38so1143340ugd for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:15:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <453A8B66.8080302@gmx.net> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Uwe Koziolek Cc: Jim Paris , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, muthas@mit.edu, fragmede@gmail.com, David Wang Uwe Koziolek wrote: > Hi, > > I have tested the patch with separate port_info and a patch only adding > the flag ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS for all controllers. > The result is allways the same. The second sata disk is allways > /dev/sdb. libata handles this correctly. > > So i am not sure, that the separate port_info is really necessary. My > assumption is a ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS > is sufficient for a correct handling. > > If i am wrong, i will send a patch with separate port_info . It might be sufficient to just add ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS for all controllers but in general we don't want to sprinkle that flag over controllers which don't actually support slave device - sometimes for safety and also for documentation purpose. So, please make a separate port_info and add ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS only to controllers which actually support slave devices. Thanks. -- tejun