Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
The proposed sata_nv patch does the opposite -- guarantees we must
support the continually problematic legacy IDE interface ad infinitum.
Such patches are OK for the test lab, but in this specific case users
/suffer/ when not running AHCI mode.
Just to r
Jeff Garzik wrote:
The proposed sata_nv patch does the opposite -- guarantees we must
support the continually problematic legacy IDE interface ad infinitum.
Such patches are OK for the test lab, but in this specific case users
/suffer/ when not running AHCI mode.
Just to reinforce...
sata_nv
peer chen wrote:
Yes, link - http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93 add the AHCI legacy
support to sata_nv when IDE/RAID mode been set in SBIOS and Device IDs
are not in ahci.c at this moment. To do so, when a new chipset come
out and DIDs haven't been submited to LKML,user still can use ahci
driver t
Yes, link - http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93 add the AHCI legacy
support to sata_nv when IDE/RAID mode been set in SBIOS and Device IDs
are not in ahci.c at this moment. To do so, when a new chipset come
out and DIDs haven't been submited to LKML,user still can use ahci
driver to handle it when se
peer chen wrote:
Ok,I agree to use AHCI driver for our AHCI controllers no matter their
class codes are IDE/RAID/AHCI. But for those new or upcoming AHCI
controller which DIDs are not included in ahci.c and also IDE/RAID
mode being set in BIOS, no driver will be loaded currently, so I hope
the fi
Ok,I agree to use AHCI driver for our AHCI controllers no matter their
class codes are IDE/RAID/AHCI. But for those new or upcoming AHCI
controller which DIDs are not included in ahci.c and also IDE/RAID
mode being set in BIOS, no driver will be loaded currently, so I hope
the first patch http://lk
peer chen wrote:
I hope one of the following patches can be merged to 2.6.24.
==
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/25/20
Unfortunately I do not feel like this is the right course of action.
Experience from Intel platforms tells us that our us
I hope one of the following patches can be merged to 2.6.24.
==
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/25/20
Yes, I agree to set the 'swncq' as default for 2.6.24, after all, for
our server customers, stability is far more important than the new
featu
Peer Chen wrote:
Add the ahci controller legacy mode support to sata_nv.
Move the DIDs of legacy mode from ahci.c to sata_nv.c
The patch base on kernel 2.6.23-rc8
Signed-off-by: Peer Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Would you mind checking libata-dev.git#upstream, and make sure it has
all the NV pat
Yes,I hear what you are saying but user should know what they are setting in
BIOS,there are lots of ways to change the BIOS setting result in unbootable
system not only change AHCI/IDE mode. If they encounter booting failure after
changing the BIOS setting,they should restore it.
Using legacy dr
Peer Chen wrote:
We have three mode for one controller - IDE/RAID/AHCI, we want sata_nv being
load when user select the IDE mode in BIOS, load ahci driver if RAID/AHCI being
selected, which will verify if our legacy mode work well and have additional
option if there is any
bug for the ahci mod
We have three mode for one controller - IDE/RAID/AHCI, we want sata_nv being
load when user select the IDE mode in BIOS, load ahci driver if RAID/AHCI being
selected, which will verify if our legacy mode work well and have additional
option if there is any
bug for the ahci mode.
---
Peer Chen wrote:
Add the ahci controller legacy mode support to sata_nv.
Move the DIDs of legacy mode from ahci.c to sata_nv.c
The patch base on kernel 2.6.23-rc8
Signed-off-by: Peer Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't understand why these are being moved?
If an interface can be driven via the
13 matches
Mail list logo
