Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>  
>>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>
>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>> front and the others don't..
> 
> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)

I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless 
it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one 
(which seems to work fine with NCQ):

gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda

/dev/sda:

  Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380                 , FwRev=V54OA52A, 
SerialNo=      VFA200R208LH5J
  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }

								Petr