From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:05:10 +0900 Message-ID: <467F3EF6.4000907@gmail.com> References: <467EC909.9040006@shaw.ca> <467F2495.3080509@gmail.com> <467F286B.40607@gmail.com> <467F2ADF.1040600@shaw.ca> <467F2D53.2000202@gmail.com> <467F3AE2.7010606@vc.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <467F3AE2.7010606@vc.cvut.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Petr Vandrovec Cc: Robert Hancock , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , enricoss@tiscali.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Petr Vandrovec wrote: >>>> 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 } Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter. Hmm... Can anyone verify these module strings? -- tejun