From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vandrovec Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:22:11 -0700 Message-ID: <467F42F3.1000609@vc.cvut.cz> 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> <467F4031.8000406@shaw.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <467F4031.8000406@shaw.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Robert Hancock Cc: Tejun Heo , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , enricoss@tiscali.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org 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