Re: IT8212/ITE RAID

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2005-08-14T21:20:21Z

On 8/14/05, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sul, 2005-08-14 at 17:56 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > * your stuff was accepted after all (and some stuff like ide-cd
> > fixes was never splitted from the -ac patchset and submitted)
>
> They were.

I remember discussion about end-of-media ide-cd fixes but the patch
was never submitted. If you have *URL* to the patch I'll work on the patch.

> > * you've never provided any technical details on "the stuff I broke"
>
> I did, several times. I had some detailed locking discussions with
> Manfred and others on it as a result. The locking in the base IDE is
> still broken, in fact its become worse - the random locking around
> timing changes now causes some PIIX users to see double spinlock debug
> with the base kernel as an example.

Huh? *WHICH* my patch causes this?

I don't remember this discussion et all, care to give some pointers?

> > > Would make sense, but I thought I had the right bits masked. Will take a
> >
> > WIN_RESTORE is send unconditionally (as it always was),
> >
> > This is not the right thing, somebody should go over all ATA/ATAPI
> > drafts and come with the correct strategy of handling WIN_RESTORE.
>
> Ok that would make sense. Matthew Garrett also reported some problems in
> that area with suspend/resume (BIOS restoring its idea of things...)

Quite likely, WIN_RESTORE is not sent on resume etc.