> > What am I missing?
>
> Drives that report their capabilities right :)
> > ad0: <Maxtor 71626 AP/QA3C1D20> ATA-0 disk at ata0 as master
> > ad0: 1554MB (3183264 sectors), 3158 cyls, 16 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S
> > ad0: 16 secs/int, 1 depth queue, PIO
> > ad1: <QUANTUM BIGFOOT_CY4320A/A03.0500> ATA-0 disk at ata0 as slave
> > ad1: 4134MB (8467200 sectors), 8960 cyls, 15 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S
> > ad1: 16 secs/int, 1 depth queue, PIO
>
> Both reports "dont care" fields in the ata conformance field
> thereby being set as ATA-0 disks. Since I've put in test
> to only enable WDMA2 on at least ATA-2 disks and only enable
> UDMA2 on at least ATA-3 disks, well your disks are not even
> tried. You can change that in ata-disk.c by commenting out the
> test for this, they look like: "ad_version(ap->versmajor) >= 2".
This makes sense. I'll try giving it a tweak.
> I've put them in recently to try to avoid runniing DMA on known
> problematic HW, but they will also reject some good ones
> regrettably...
Hrm... any chance of making that a config option? People should be
allowed to hurt themselves if they want :) Or maybe in LINT point
to the correct spot in the source so that people can hurt themselves
from there?
-Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
