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

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

Robert Hancock wrote:
> 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 :-)

Perhaps ones sold directly by Hitachi are Hitachi, while ones sold 
through OEMs are no-name?
							Petr