Request kernel 2.6.18 ..

Request kernel 2.6.18 ..

[Ben Duncan]

Report: 2.6.18 has solved a lot of issues with
my 965 chipset Duo Core intel MB and has been
extremely stable ...

Now, any idea on a timeline for driver for the Marvell IDE
controller ?

Thanks ...

-- 
Ben Duncan   - Business Network Solutions, Inc. 336 Elton Road  Jackson MS, 39212
"Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
        - Hanlon's Razor

Re: Request kernel 2.6.18 ..

[Jeff Garzik]

Ben Duncan wrote:
> Report: 2.6.18 has solved a lot of issues with
> my 965 chipset Duo Core intel MB and has been
> extremely stable ...
> 
> Now, any idea on a timeline for driver for the Marvell IDE
> controller ?

No.

Ask Marvell...  I have, to no avail.

	Jeff

Marvell PATA (was Re: Request kernel 2.6.18 ..)

[Jeff Garzik]

Update:  I have now have docs.  Missed a few bits of info, but most of 
it is there.  Kudos to Marvell...

	Jeff

Re: Request kernel 2.6.18 ..

[Alan Cox]

Ar Mer, 2006-09-20 am 19:31 -0500, ysgrifennodd Ben Duncan:
> Report: 2.6.18 has solved a lot of issues with
> my 965 chipset Duo Core intel MB and has been
> extremely stable ...
> 
> Now, any idea on a timeline for driver for the Marvell IDE
> controller ?

Possibly never. Marvell don't currently seem to want to play. Now that
might be for several reasons, one of which is that its someone elses
chip rebadged. In that case someone has a chance of working out what it
copies (eg which bits change when you boot with or without a master or
slave on each channel is a good clue)

The current prognosis however is that you and/or other marvell users are
going to have to reverse-engineer the thing or just avoid boards using
that chip.

Re: Request kernel 2.6.18 ..

[Avi Kivity]

Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Ar Mer, 2006-09-20 am 19:31 -0500, ysgrifennodd Ben Duncan:
> > Report: 2.6.18 has solved a lot of issues with
> > my 965 chipset Duo Core intel MB and has been
> > extremely stable ...
> >
> > Now, any idea on a timeline for driver for the Marvell IDE
> > controller ?
>
> Possibly never. Marvell don't currently seem to want to play. Now that
> might be for several reasons, one of which is that its someone elses
> chip rebadged. In that case someone has a chance of working out what it
> copies (eg which bits change when you boot with or without a master or
> slave on each channel is a good clue)
>
> The current prognosis however is that you and/or other marvell users are
> going to have to reverse-engineer the thing or just avoid boards using
> that chip.
>

I have such a board, and all-generic-ide appears to work (at least 
enough to load the installer from CD, all the rest is SATA).  Perhaps it 
can be quirked so the parameter won't be necessary?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function