Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-22 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/22/07, Paul Rolland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I dont think there is one or that this reply of yours could cause it :P Just to add my $0.02 on this point : this could also be one of the problem I'm facing on my machine right now, but the point is that Windows supports it perf

RE: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-22 Thread Paul Rolland
Hello, > The first one got some debate as if it was legal to have a slave > without a master and all and the last thing I saw written on this > email that we (that is, the linux developers and the maintainers, I > dont code anything other than 'Hello world' and even that might > segfault) should s

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-21 Thread Vincent Legoll
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But serious, The second "abnormal" error "ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on port 0xF88597DF", I got feedback from, by Tejun. He confirmed that, as I thought, this was a cosmectic error messages for "No devices found". I get 0x7F, but already knew it

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-21 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/21/07, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the latter case it might explain why you see one master connected to one bus and a slave to the other. If you use legacy SATA mode you should just see drive 0 and drive 1. Oh and! In

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-21 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/21/07, Vincent Legoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to: http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html From: Patrick Ale Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST Sorry Yea, I know.. I mail too much.. too much time at hands a

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-21 Thread Vincent Legoll
Argh I think I screwed the mail threading, I was refering to: http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0702.1/1060.html From: Patrick Ale Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 05:28:21 EST Sorry -- Vincent Legoll - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a mes

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-21 Thread Vincent Legoll
I logged: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8051 That is looking very similar to what this thread is about. But the fact that this bites on a laptop, where you cannot modify cabling/jumpering of the drives is annoying. The drive is even properly recognized when booting from a cd insert

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-13 Thread Tejun Heo
Patrick Ale wrote: ATA: abnormal status 0x8 on port 0xF88597DF Maybe this is purely a cosmetic error where the error code can be translated to something like "no drive attached" or maybe the drivers assume you always configure a master drive on a controller, which doesnt always have to be the ca

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-13 Thread Mark Lord
Robert Hancock wrote: Having a single drive on the channel configured as slave is not really a legal configuration. Sure it is. Not ideal, but "legal" in every respect, and suprisingly common "in the wild" since the early 1990s. (I believe the ATA standards say that it's something that a h

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/11/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote: > Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's > just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's > set as slave with no master present.

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Robert Hancock wrote: > Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's > just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's > set as slave with no master present. I have seen at least three *thousand* boxes configured that way in t

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick Ale wrote: > On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Patrick Ale wrote: Then in that case you should set the remaining drive as master. That's just the way PATA is. A lot of BIOSes won't even detect a drive that's set

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Robert Hancock
Patrick Ale wrote: On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick Ale wrote: > Something unrelated to the tests I am doing. > > I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the > idea that you might have a controller without a master drive > configured. > > In

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Patrick Ale
On 2/11/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick Ale wrote: > Something unrelated to the tests I am doing. > > I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the > idea that you might have a controller without a master drive > configured. > > In this case on ATA2 I

Re: libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Robert Hancock
Patrick Ale wrote: Something unrelated to the tests I am doing. I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the idea that you might have a controller without a master drive configured. In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave. ATA: abnormal status 0x7F

libsata doesn't like bus without master

2007-02-11 Thread Patrick Ale
Hi, Something unrelated to the tests I am doing. I found out that the libsata driver doesn't really cope or likes the idea that you might have a controller without a master drive configured. In this case on ATA2 I have a CDROM drive, connected as slave. ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0x177 A