Re: [patch 2.6.22-rc6] ATA: add a PCI ID for Intel Santa Rosa PATA controller

[Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@leemhuis.info>]

On 02.07.2007 13:24, Chr wrote:
> On Monday, 2. July 2007, you wrote:
>> On 02.07.2007 07:02, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hmmm. From looking at the ICH8-Datasheet (
>> http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/313056.htm
>> or http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/31305603.pdf )
>> page 189 and later it seems to me that the ICH8M (just as all the other
>> Intel-Chipsets I know) officially only supports Ultra ATA 100 (and not
>> 133!).
>> So is the ich_pata_133 correct in the patch (see quoted line above)?
> For some strange reason, I can not get the pdf...  
> Anyway, the original patch had "ich_pata_100".
> see: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ide%40vger.kernel.org/msg07416.html

k, missed that post.

> but Alan Cox wrote:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ide%40vger.kernel.org/msg07417.html
>> Its ich_pata_133 - all the newer chips are.

Intel afaik never supported Ultra ATA 133 officially in any of the
mainstream desktop or mobile chipsets.

>> They work even better if you
>> set them into AHCI mode in the BIOS and then they should "just work" with
>> recent kernels as the AHCI driver now matches by class.
> And "Gaston, Jason D" <jason.d.gaston@intel.com> didn't complain about it.
> it's a "bit" confusing with all "native" AHCI SATA chipset that have to emulate 
> PATA for compatibility reasons... 

Well, just FYI: on my Laptop AHCI is enabled and used for the SATA hard
disk. But the DVD drive still is a pata one afaics (I'm not in front of
the machine, so I can't check), connected via the pata controller -- so
for me there is no emulation involved (at least afaics).

> So, whom can we trust?

I'd trust the public datasheet in this case.

CU
thl