From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:10:25 -0600 Message-ID: <467F4031.8000406@shaw.ca> 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> <467F3EF6.4000907@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net ([24.71.223.10]:38997 "EHLO pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750880AbXFYELL (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:11:11 -0400 In-reply-to: <467F3EF6.4000907@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Petr Vandrovec , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , enricoss@tiscali.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the advantage of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-) -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/