Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa() (take 3)

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> 
>>>>>> When checking for the CFA feature set support, ata_id_is_cfa() 
>>>>>> tests bit 2 in
>>>>>> word 82 of the identify data instead the word 83;  it also checks 
>>>>>> the ATA/PI
>>>>>> version support in the word 80 (which the CompactFlash 
>>>>>> specifications have as
>>>>>> reserved), this having no slightest chance to work on the modern 
>>>>>> CF cards that
>>>>>> don't have 0x848A in the word 0...
> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
> 
>>>>> Acked-by: Alan Cox <number6@the-village.bc.nu>
> 
>>>> ..
> 
>>>> Any chance you two could figure out this one below?
>>>> It *is* a CF card, but doesn't show up as such.
> 
>>>> /dev/sda:
> 
>>>> 044a 3fff 0000 000f 0000 0240 003f 03bc
>>>> 0000 0000 5052 4554 4543 2020 2020 2020
>>>> 3031 3233 3541 4545 0002 0002 0004 3230
>>>> 3038 3038 3035 4346 2020 2020 2020 2020
>>>> 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
>>>> 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 8001
>>>> 0000 0300 0000 0200 0000 0007 3fff 000f
>>>> 003f 3c4f 00ec 0100 0000 03bc 0000 0007
>>>> 0003 0078 0078 0078 0078 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0010 0000 700b 400c 4003 0001 0000 0003
> 
>>> ATA device, with non-removable media
>>>         Model Number:       CF
>>>         Serial Number:      PRETEC      01235AEE
>>>         Firmware Revision:  20080805
>>> Standards:
>>>         Supported: 4
>>>         Likely used: 6
> 
>>>    Here's what I was afraid of: it does report the ATA revision in 
>>> word 80. Otherwise, it seems pretty standard modern CF. What are we 
>>> to do now, Alan?
> 
>    Mark, too bad that you haven't joined the argument before...
> 
>>>> 207f 0001 0000 0000 fffe 600f 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0009 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
>>>> 81f4 0000 0000 0092 001b 0000 0000 0000
> 
>>>    Here are the words 160-167.; word 163 reports PIO6 and MWDMA3 max, 
>>> PIO6 selected...
> 
>> ..
> 
>> Note that, in hdparm-prerelease, I now do something very similar
>> to the libata patch, except I skip the !id[82] check.  This works
> 
>    !id[80] you mean?
..

Yeah.. I've lost the libata patch posting now.

Pity we cannot also check for the signature of 0x044a (word-0)
as per the CFA spec, but I believe I tried that once here and
found some hard disks that got misidentified as a result. :)

Thanks for poking at this stuff.
-ml