Re: pdc202xx_old serious bug with DMA on 2.6.x series

["Adolfo González Blázquez" <agblazquez_mailing@telefonica.net>]

Hi again,

The bus was introduced on 2.6.0-test5.
I tried test1, test2, test3, test4. All OK.
Then test5, test6 BUGGY.

Hope this boooring task will help... more than spanish players on
eurocup... bad day :(



El dom, 20-06-2004 a las 02:47, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz escribió:
> On Sunday 20 of June 2004 01:00, Adolfo González Blázquez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay... I tried 2.5.50 and 2.5.75, and, at least for my
> > machine, everything seems to be perfect. Then i tried every 2.6 kernel.
> > All of them have the same buggy behaviour.
> 
> First of all thanks for doing this.
> 
> > These are the differences between 2.5.75 and 2.6.0 pdc202xx_old.c (sorry
> > if this is not the correct format, im new here :)
> >
> > Hope this will help.
> >
> > Adolfo González
> >
> > ###################################################################
> >
> > --- linux-2.5.75/drivers/ide/pci/pdc202xx_old.c	2003-07-10
> > 22:15:03.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.0/drivers/ide/pci/pdc202xx_old.c	2003-12-18
> > 03:59:53.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
> >  #include <asm/io.h>
> >  #include <asm/irq.h>
> >
> > -#include "ide_modes.h"
> >  #include "pdc202xx_old.h"
> >
> >  #define PDC202_DEBUG_CABLE	0
> > @@ -519,13 +518,15 @@
> >  		} else {
> >  			goto fast_ata_pio;
> >  		}
> > +		return hwif->ide_dma_on(drive);
> >  	} else if ((id->capability & 8) || (id->field_valid & 2)) {
> >  fast_ata_pio:
> >  no_dma_set:
> >  		hwif->tuneproc(drive, 5);
> >  		return hwif->ide_dma_off_quietly(drive);
> >  	}
> > -	return hwif->ide_dma_on(drive);
> > +	/* IORDY not supported */
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  static int pdc202xx_quirkproc (ide_drive_t *drive)
> > @@ -749,9 +750,6 @@
> >  	hwif->tuneproc  = &config_chipset_for_pio;
> >  	hwif->quirkproc = &pdc202xx_quirkproc;
> >
> > -	if (hwif->pci_dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_PROMISE_20265)
> > -		hwif->addressing = (hwif->channel) ? 0 : 1;
> > -
> >  	if (hwif->pci_dev->device != PCI_DEVICE_ID_PROMISE_20246) {
> >  		hwif->busproc   = &pdc202xx_tristate;
> >  		hwif->resetproc = &pdc202xx_reset;
> 
> In 2.6.0-test5 kernel we allowed LBA48 for PDC20265
> (after few people reported that it works okay now)
> but the same patch is also in 2.4 kernels.
> 
> There is one important 2.4 vs 2.6 difference here
> - in 2.6 if the drive is using LBA48 we allow up
> to 1024KiB large requests (you can check if this is
> a problem by replacing "65536" by "256" in ide-probe.c).
> 
> The other likely candidate for breakage is kernel
> 2.6.0-test2 which contains DMA timeout fixes.
> 
> I can make some patches later in the meantime
> somebody may test 2.6.0-test[1,2,4,5].
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> > @@ -928,7 +926,7 @@
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > -static struct pci_device_id pdc202xx_pci_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
> > +static struct pci_device_id pdc202xx_pci_tbl[] = {
> >  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_PROMISE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_PROMISE_20246, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0},
> >  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_PROMISE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_PROMISE_20262, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 1},
> >  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_PROMISE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_PROMISE_20263, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 2},
> >
> > ###################################################################
> >
> > El sáb, 19-06-2004 a las 18:46, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz escribió:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Any news about this issue?
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 15 of June 2004 13:33, you wrote:
> > > > El mar, 15-06-2004 a las 13:15, Marcelo Tosatti escribió:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:20:03AM +0200, Adolfo González Blázquez wrote:
> > > > > > El mar, 15-06-2004 a las 01:18, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz escribió:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday 15 of June 2004 00:50, Adolfo González Blázquez wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lot of users are reporting seriour problems with pdc202xx_old
> > > > > > > > ide pci driver. Enabling DMA on any device related with this
> > > > > > > > driver makes the system unusable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This seems to happen in all the 2.6.x kernel series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doing binary search on 2.4->2.6 kernels would help greatly
> > > > > > > (narrowing problem to a specific kernel versions).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it helps, I tried 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.6.5, and 2.6.7-rc3, and all
> > > > > > have the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > > And which kernels does not exhibit the problem?
> > > >
> > > > The 2.4 series it's ok, I'm gonna try with different 2.5.x kernels to
> > > > see if i can discover when the bug was introduced
>