Re: sata_promise: port is slow to respond, reset failed

[Peter Favrholdt <linux-ide@how.dk>]

Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> nForce2. Hmm..

Peter Favrholdt wrote:
>  >   11:      27474    XT-PIC-XT        libata, libata, ohci_hcd:usb3, 
>  > NVidia nForce2

> That "mystery" device makes me strongly suspect that you've
> loaded the binary-only nvidia drivers. If that's true, then
> the machine's problems may just as well be caused by that driver,
> not sata_promise. (We've seen that happen before.)

I didn't load any special NVidia driver - vanilla kernel only. The 
graphics card is Matrox G550. The nForce2 could be the nForce2 SMBus or 
the nForce2 IDE. Here is the result of dmesg | grep -i nforce
[   26.379422] NFORCE2: IDE controller at PCI slot 0000:00:09.0
[   26.379481] NFORCE2: chipset revision 162
[   26.379525] NFORCE2: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
[   26.379575] NFORCE2: BIOS didn't set cable bits correctly. Enabling 
workaround.
[   26.379634] NFORCE2: 0000:00:09.0 (rev a2) UDMA133 controller
[   31.861284] i2c_adapter i2c-0: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x5000
[   31.861391] i2c_adapter i2c-1: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x5500

> I can reproduce it on an Intel 440BX chipset machine with a PIII.
> However, that chipset, while very good in its day, is rather old now.

I believe the problem here only shows if all four sata ports are 
stressed simultaneously (I should test this thoroughly). The dependence 
on Barracuda 7200.10 could be because these disks are faster than the 
others tested, this needed in order for the PCI contention to arise? 
(I'm still wild-guessing here).

Best regards,

Peter