From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262257AbVHAQTU (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:19:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262235AbVHAQPJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:15:09 -0400 Received: from mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49]:32818 "EHLO mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262111AbVHAQOm (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:14:42 -0400 Message-ID: <42EE4ADF.4080502@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:16:31 +0100 From: Daniel Drake User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050723) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otto Meier Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Driver for sata adapter promise sata300 tx4 References: <42EDE918.9040807@gmx.net> <42EE3501.7010107@gentoo.org> <42EE3FB8.10008@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <42EE3FB8.10008@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Otto Meier wrote: > My question is also are these features (NCQ/TCQ) and the heigher > datarate be supported by this > modification? or is only the basic feature set of sata 150 TX4 supported? NCQ support is under development. Search the archives for Jens Axboe's recent patches to support this. I don't know about TCQ. > Here is the patch: > > --- linux/drivers/scsi/sata_promise.c.orig 2005-08-01 17:09:48.474824778 > +0200 > +++ linux/drivers/scsi/sata_promise.c 2005-07-31 12:57:06.415979512 +0200 Your patch will not apply because it is linewrapped. You also need to submit it in a mail of its own to the relevent lists and maintainer, with your sign-off (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) > I just saw the patches of Luke Kosewski regarding the SATA150 TX4 > antipating > them it might be right to modify the patch to > > + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_PROMISE, 0x3d17, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, > + board_40518 }, It won't compile like this because board_40518 is not a valid identifier. I also think it doesn't really matter as it looks like these identifier codes have lost their numerical meanings, and now just signify: board_2037x - 2 port SATA, maybe with an extra PATA port board_20319 - 4 port SATA board_20619 - 4 port PATA Daniel