linux-ide.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question
@ 2007-03-01  4:23 James Clark
  2007-03-12 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: James Clark @ 2007-03-01  4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-ide

I have an Adaptec 1220SA which I originally thought was just a re-badged
Sil3132 design. Externally it appears that way (the stamp on the chip
reads 3132), however it identifies as a Silicon Image type 0x0242
according to lspci.  sata_sil24 does not attach.

I made the trivial addition to sata_sil24 device id table and it appears
to work. Performance is about the same as I get with the same drives on
the onboard sata_via (about 78MB/s sequential read, 72MB/s write) and
md mirror resyncing reflects this.

This is on a FC6 system (2.6.19-1.2911.fc6  SMP x86_64).
I compared with 2.6.20 sources and sata_sil24 seems to have some
cosmetic changes, but nothing that would help this it seems.

When the patched module loads I see a 'failed to IDENTIFY' and spurious
interrupt message. These do not seem to recur during use. Anything to
worry about?
I note that lspci reports a subvendor of Adaptec, type 0x242. Is it
correct to just patch (like below) where one vendor appears to have
'cloaked' a generic board?

---

04:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. Unknown device 0242 
(rev 01) (prog-if 01)
	Subsystem: Adaptec Unknown device 0242
	Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 32
	Memory at dc004000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128]
	Memory at dc000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
	I/O ports at 9000 [size=128]
	Expansion ROM at db000000 [disabled] [size=512K]
	Capabilities: [54] Power Management version 2
	Capabilities: [5c] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/0 Enable-
	Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint IRQ 0
	Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting

---

--- drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c.orig	2006-11-30 05:57:37.000000000 +0800
+++ drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c	2007-02-28 19:08:18.000000000 +0800
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@
  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3124), BID_SIL3124 },
  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, 0x3124), BID_SIL3124 },
  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3132), BID_SIL3132 },
+	{ PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x0242), BID_SIL3132 },
  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3131), BID_SIL3131 },
  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3531), BID_SIL3131 },

---

sata_sil24 0000:04:00.0: version 0.3
ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:04:00.0[A] -> GSI 32 (level, low) -> IRQ 32
PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.0 to 64
ata3: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC20012378000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
ata4: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2001237A000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
scsi2 : sata_sil24
ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
ata3: spurious interrupt (slot_stat 0x0 active_tag -84148995 sactive 0x0)
ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata3.00: ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 390721968 sectors: LBA48
ata3.00: configured for UDMA/100
scsi3 : sata_sil24
ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata4.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
ata4: spurious interrupt (slot_stat 0x0 active_tag -84148995 sactive 0x0)
ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata4.00: ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 390721968 sectors: LBA48
ata4.00: configured for UDMA/100
scsi 2:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST3200822AS      3.01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
SCSI device sdc: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdc: Write Protect is off
sdc: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdc: drive cache: write back
SCSI device sdc: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdc: Write Protect is off
sdc: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdc: drive cache: write back
  sdc: sdc1 sdc2
sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdc
sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0
scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST3200822AS      3.01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
SCSI device sdd: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdd: Write Protect is off
sdd: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdd: drive cache: write back
SCSI device sdd: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdd: Write Protect is off
sdd: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdd: drive cache: write back
  sdd: sdd1 sdd2
sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdd
sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question
  2007-03-01  4:23 Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question James Clark
@ 2007-03-12 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
  2007-03-12 13:37   ` Jamie Clark
  2007-03-12 17:26   ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-03-12 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: James Clark; +Cc: linux-ide

Hello,

James Clark wrote:
> I have an Adaptec 1220SA which I originally thought was just a re-badged
> Sil3132 design. Externally it appears that way (the stamp on the chip
> reads 3132), however it identifies as a Silicon Image type 0x0242
> according to lspci.  sata_sil24 does not attach.
> 
> I made the trivial addition to sata_sil24 device id table and it appears
> to work. Performance is about the same as I get with the same drives on
> the onboard sata_via (about 78MB/s sequential read, 72MB/s write) and
> md mirror resyncing reflects this.

I'll ask SIMG about it.

> This is on a FC6 system (2.6.19-1.2911.fc6  SMP x86_64).
> I compared with 2.6.20 sources and sata_sil24 seems to have some
> cosmetic changes, but nothing that would help this it seems.
> 
> When the patched module loads I see a 'failed to IDENTIFY' and spurious
> interrupt message. These do not seem to recur during use. Anything to
> worry about?
> I note that lspci reports a subvendor of Adaptec, type 0x242. Is it
> correct to just patch (like below) where one vendor appears to have
> 'cloaked' a generic board?

Yeap, the patch looks fine.

> 04:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. Unknown device 0242
> (rev 01) (prog-if 01)
>     Subsystem: Adaptec Unknown device 0242
>     Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 32
>     Memory at dc004000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128]
>     Memory at dc000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
>     I/O ports at 9000 [size=128]
>     Expansion ROM at db000000 [disabled] [size=512K]
>     Capabilities: [54] Power Management version 2
>     Capabilities: [5c] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/0
> Enable-
>     Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint IRQ 0
>     Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
> 
> ---
> 
> --- drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c.orig    2006-11-30 05:57:37.000000000 +0800
> +++ drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c    2007-02-28 19:08:18.000000000 +0800
> @@ -347,6 +347,7 @@
>      { PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3124), BID_SIL3124 },
>      { PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, 0x3124), BID_SIL3124 },
>      { PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3132), BID_SIL3132 },
> +    { PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x0242), BID_SIL3132 },
>      { PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3131), BID_SIL3131 },
>      { PCI_VDEVICE(CMD, 0x3531), BID_SIL3131 },
> 
> ---
> 
> sata_sil24 0000:04:00.0: version 0.3
> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:04:00.0[A] -> GSI 32 (level, low) -> IRQ 32
> PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.0 to 64
> ata3: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC20012378000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
> ata4: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2001237A000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
> scsi2 : sata_sil24
> ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
> ata3: spurious interrupt (slot_stat 0x0 active_tag -84148995 sactive 0x0)

But this is weird.  libata somehow thought the drive is a really old one
and tried to do INIT_DEV_PARAMS on it.  Does this always happen?  Can
you give a shot at 2.6.20 with your patch applied?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question
  2007-03-12 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
@ 2007-03-12 13:37   ` Jamie Clark
  2007-03-12 17:26   ` Tejun Heo
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jamie Clark @ 2007-03-12 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> James Clark wrote:
>   
>> sata_sil24 0000:04:00.0: version 0.3
>> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:04:00.0[A] -> GSI 32 (level, low) -> IRQ 32
>> PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.0 to 64
>> ata3: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC20012378000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
>> ata4: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2001237A000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 32
>> scsi2 : sata_sil24
>> ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
>> ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
>> ata3: spurious interrupt (slot_stat 0x0 active_tag -84148995 sactive 0x0)
>>     
>
> But this is weird.  libata somehow thought the drive is a really old one
> and tried to do INIT_DEV_PARAMS on it.  Does this always happen?  Can
> you give a shot at 2.6.20 with your patch applied?
>   
Sure. 2.6.20.2 (with PCI ID patch) gives similar probe (below) with the 
Adaptec. I have a pair of newer Barracudas (320GB) with the 3.AA 
firmware on the mainboard sata_via controller and they don't give the 
INIT_DEV_PARAMS message. Would it be useful to try them on the Adapted 
SIL3132?

[snip]
sata_sil24 0000:04:00.0: version 0.3
ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:04:00.0[A] -> GSI 32 (level, low) -> IRQ 21
PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.0 to 64
ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF8838000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 21
ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF883A000 ctl 0x0 bmdma 0x0 irq 21
scsi0 : sata_sil24
ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata1.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata1.00: ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 390721968 sectors: LBA48
ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
scsi1 : sata_sil24
ata2: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata2.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80)
ata2: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
ata2.00: ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 390721968 sectors: LBA48
ata2.00: configured for UDMA/100
scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST3200822AS      3.01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST3200822AS      3.01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
SCSI device sda: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sda: Write Protect is off
sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
support DPO or FUA
SCSI device sda: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sda: Write Protect is off
sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
support DPO or FUA
 sda: sda1 sda2
sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sda
SCSI device sdb: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdb: Write Protect is off
sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdb: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
support DPO or FUA
SCSI device sdb: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB)
sdb: Write Protect is off
sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sdb: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
support DPO or FUA
 sdb: sdb1 sdb2
sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdb

-Jamie

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question
  2007-03-12 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
  2007-03-12 13:37   ` Jamie Clark
@ 2007-03-12 17:26   ` Tejun Heo
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-03-12 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: James Clark; +Cc: linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> James Clark wrote:
>> I have an Adaptec 1220SA which I originally thought was just a re-badged
>> Sil3132 design. Externally it appears that way (the stamp on the chip
>> reads 3132), however it identifies as a Silicon Image type 0x0242
>> according to lspci.  sata_sil24 does not attach.
>>
>> I made the trivial addition to sata_sil24 device id table and it appears
>> to work. Performance is about the same as I get with the same drives on
>> the onboard sata_via (about 78MB/s sequential read, 72MB/s write) and
>> md mirror resyncing reflects this.
> 
> I'll ask SIMG about it.

Okay, SIMG verified it.  Can you please post the patch with proper
subject, description and Signed-off-by?  The following is a good example.

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/16956

Anything from --- to the start of the patch is optional (including ---
itself).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-12 17:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-01  4:23 Adaptec 1220SA (Sil3132) & sata_sil24 question James Clark
2007-03-12 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-12 13:37   ` Jamie Clark
2007-03-12 17:26   ` Tejun Heo

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).