From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert Lee Subject: Re: Implement the technote about promise/maxtor drives Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:53:54 +0800 Message-ID: <45D55502.2020702@tw.ibm.com> References: <20070131171251.4210bcdb@localhost.localdomain> <45D55003.6030307@tw.ibm.com> Reply-To: albertl@mail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:60564 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751164AbXBPGyD (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:54:03 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1G6s0L6019490 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:54:00 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1G6s0Ps510834 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:54:00 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1G6s0fH010377 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:54:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: <45D55003.6030307@tw.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cc: jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Mikael Pettersson Albert wrote: > Alan wrote: > >>I don't have the hardware combination to test this one so would >>appreciate people testing it before it goes anywhere further >> > > > I've gotten two Maxtor UDMA/133 drives for testing with 2.6.20-git11. > Those Maxtors drives are quite old: the media access commands no longer > work, but device identify/configuration still works. > > Below is the test result: > > 1. Before the patch, both drives are configured to UDMA/133: > > > ====================================================================================== > 2. After the patch, the slave drive is limited to UDMA/100: > > pata_pdc2027x 0000:02:05.0: version 0.74-ac5 > ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNK1] enabled at IRQ 10 > ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:05.0[A] -> Link [LNK1] -> GSI 10 (level, low) -> IRQ 10 > pata_pdc2027x 0000:02:05.0: PLL input clock 16992 kHz > ata3: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xe08497c0 ctl 0xe0849fda bmdma 0xe0849000 irq 10 > ata4: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xe08495c0 ctl 0xe0849dda bmdma 0xe0849008 irq 10 > scsi2 : pata_pdc2027x > input: ImPS/2 Logitech Wheel Mouse as /class/input/input1 > ata3.00: ATA-5: MAXTOR 6L060L3, A93.0500, max UDMA/133 > ata3.00: 117266688 sectors, multi 16: LBA > ata3.01: ATA-7: Maxtor 6Y060L0, YAR41BW0, max UDMA/133 > ata3.01: 120103200 sectors, multi 16: LBA > ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133 > ata3.01: configured for UDMA/100 > scsi3 : pata_pdc2027x > ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on port 0xe08495df > =================================================== > So, it looks the patch works as designed/intended. > BTW, maybe we should print something similar to the "applying bridge limits" message, > otherwise the end users might wonder why their slave drive is configured as UDMA/100. > Some Maxtor drives have "Maxtor" and others have "MAXTOR" in the identify device data. If the slave is a "MAXTOR" one, the following code segment doesn't work. + /* If the master is a maxtor in UDMA6 then the slave should not use UDMA 6 */ + if(strstr(model_num, "Maxtor") == 0 && pair->dma_mode == XFER_UDMA_6) + mask &= ~ (1 << (6 + ATA_SHIFT_UDMA)); Maybe we should check both "Maxtor" and "MAXTOR"? -- albert