From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: libata reset-seq merge broke sata_sil on sh Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:53:48 +0200 Message-ID: <464307CC.40701@gmail.com> References: <20070510072005.GA27316@linux-sh.org> <464301D3.5060306@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <464301D3.5060306@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Mundt , jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Some more thoughts. Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Paul Mundt wrote: > [--snip, thanks a lot for the detailed report--] >> However, if I go back before any of the reset changes were introduced, >> things were working fine, and there were no problems with waiting for >> the reset. Ideas? > > Hmm... It worked so well on all my sil's. I'm a bit puzzled because we > also failed the same condition before the change too. The only change > is we're less patient with the initial tries but in the end we give more > than enough time to the device to prepare itself. > > * Does your drive start spun down when it boots? Can you post dmesg > with printk timestamp turned on with kernel prior to reset-seq merge? > > * In ata_bus_softreset() and sata_std_hardreset(), there's msleep(150) > delay before checking the status post-reset. Does increasing the delay > make any difference? Please try to increase it exponentially till it > reaches 10sec. * According to the report, things still work till 27c78b37 - commit for the actual merge and there's no related change till the current master from there. So, which commit actually breaks detection? Or is detection just flaky after b8cffc6a? * How does things work on 9b89391c? Also, please turn on printk timestamp on all reports so that we can now the timeline of things. Thanks. -- tejun