From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream-fixes] libata: implement libata.force_cbl parameter Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:07:10 +0900 Message-ID: <4784567E.1050600@gmail.com> References: <4783786A.6040608@gmail.com> <20080108144004.30a18457@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4784213F.4070203@gmail.com> <20080109013728.3b213cfb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4784275B.8050506@gmail.com> <20080109030502.54914b01@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]:23721 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbYAIFHQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:07:16 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so173225wah.23 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:07:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080109030502.54914b01@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Jeff Garzik , IDE/ATA development list Alan Cox wrote: >>> In which case we only need to be able to force UDMA33 or less ? >> Cable detection goes wrong and 40c is detected as 80c. However, we got > > In which case we only (see first question). I don't see why we need to > force anything but "max speed UDMA 33" Ah.. yeah, right. I somehow missed the negation in the question. There's no need to force 80c usually. The parameter might be as well force_40c and only force 40c limit. -- tejun