From: "Dâniel Fraga" <fragabr@gmail.com>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ICH10 not working with AHCI kernel option
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:16:31 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4bbe9c12.1502be0a.0f89.1047@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <o2i51f3faa71004081952s68d4861w28b9b73da284c91d@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:52:34 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can detect an AHCI-capable Intel chipsets (in most cases anyway),
> but problem is that a lot of systems with such chipsets, especially
> laptops, unfortunately have no way to actually put the controller into
> AHCI mode (no BIOS option for it). We could whine about it, but in a
> lot of cases there's not much that can be done about it..
>
> Intel chipsets are pretty much the only ones that have the separate
> modes in the BIOS for AHCI - others like NVIDIA AHCI-compliant
> controllers support both legacy mode and AHCI in the same device,
> which is a lot more convenient in some ways..
Yes, I agree completely!
It's absurd that in plain XXI century, hardware makers still
default to legacy mode without a chance for the user to change that in
BIOS.
I understand that Linus Torvalds complained about EFI some time
ago (http://kerneltrap.org/node/6884), citing it as "other Intel
brain-damage" but at least EFI would give a chance for the user to
interact better with the system than the limited, ugly and old "BIOS".
When every motherboard maker adopt EFI, I hope this limitation
will go away. I can't understand why new Core i7 systems still use BIOS
instead of EFI.
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-09 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-08 13:36 ICH10 not working with AHCI kernel option Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 13:45 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 13:46 ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 13:59 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 14:02 ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 14:09 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-08 14:15 ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-08 23:54 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 2:00 ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-09 2:09 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 2:22 ` Dâniel Fraga
2010-04-09 2:52 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 3:16 ` Dâniel Fraga [this message]
2010-04-09 10:12 ` Tim Small
2010-04-09 14:47 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 15:07 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 16:37 ` Tim Small
2010-04-09 18:53 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 23:04 ` Robert Hancock
2010-04-09 4:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2010-04-09 9:16 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 9:08 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-09 9:12 ` Dâniel Fraga
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4bbe9c12.1502be0a.0f89.1047@mx.google.com \
--to=fragabr@gmail.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hancockrwd@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox