| Message ID | 4BAFEA7A.50904@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Tejun Heo put forth on 3/28/2010 6:47 PM: > Hello, > > On 03/29/2010 05:01 AM, Robert Hancock wrote: >>> ata2.00: ATAPI: Pioneer CD-ROM ATAPI Model DR-A24X 0102, E1.02, max >>> MWDMA2 >>> ata2.00: NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't skip SETXFER, might >>> malfunction >> >> Yeah, NOSETXFER doesn't take effect on PATA drives. It could, but it >> would assume that the BIOS has set the right mode which seems rather >> dangerous. > > Well, we can issue the command, ignore the error and then check the > correct mode is configured during revalidation. For now, the > following should show us whether something like that would work. > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > index 4a28420..ca4a50a 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > @@ -3446,6 +3446,10 @@ static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_device *dev) > "NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't " > "skip SETXFER, might malfunction\n"); > err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev); > + if (err_mask) > + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING, "SETXFER failed w/ %x\n", > + err_mask); > + err_mask = 0; > } > > if (err_mask & ~AC_ERR_DEV) I'm still using 2.6.32.9. Is it ok to apply this against 2.6.32.9?
On 03/29/2010 09:09 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> index 4a28420..ca4a50a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> @@ -3446,6 +3446,10 @@ static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_device *dev) >> "NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't " >> "skip SETXFER, might malfunction\n"); >> err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev); >> + if (err_mask) >> + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING, "SETXFER failed w/ %x\n", >> + err_mask); >> + err_mask = 0; >> } >> >> if (err_mask & ~AC_ERR_DEV) > > > I'm still using 2.6.32.9. Is it ok to apply this against 2.6.32.9? Yeah, that part hasn't changed lately so it should be okay.
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/28/2010 7:09 PM: > Tejun Heo put forth on 3/28/2010 6:47 PM: >> Hello, >> >> On 03/29/2010 05:01 AM, Robert Hancock wrote: >>>> ata2.00: ATAPI: Pioneer CD-ROM ATAPI Model DR-A24X 0102, E1.02, max >>>> MWDMA2 >>>> ata2.00: NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't skip SETXFER, might >>>> malfunction >>> >>> Yeah, NOSETXFER doesn't take effect on PATA drives. It could, but it >>> would assume that the BIOS has set the right mode which seems rather >>> dangerous. >> >> Well, we can issue the command, ignore the error and then check the >> correct mode is configured during revalidation. For now, the >> following should show us whether something like that would work. >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> index 4a28420..ca4a50a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> @@ -3446,6 +3446,10 @@ static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_device *dev) >> "NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't " >> "skip SETXFER, might malfunction\n"); >> err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev); >> + if (err_mask) >> + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING, "SETXFER failed w/ %x\n", >> + err_mask); >> + err_mask = 0; >> } >> >> if (err_mask & ~AC_ERR_DEV) > > > I'm still using 2.6.32.9. Is it ok to apply this against 2.6.32.9? Oh, and do I need to keep the black list entry or get rid of it?
On 03/29/2010 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> I'm still using 2.6.32.9. Is it ok to apply this against 2.6.32.9? > > Oh, and do I need to keep the black list entry or get rid of it? It doesn't matter. It has no effect anyway.
Tejun Heo put forth on 3/28/2010 7:25 PM: > On 03/29/2010 09:09 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >>> index 4a28420..ca4a50a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >>> @@ -3446,6 +3446,10 @@ static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_device *dev) >>> "NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't " >>> "skip SETXFER, might malfunction\n"); >>> err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev); >>> + if (err_mask) >>> + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING, "SETXFER failed w/ %x\n", >>> + err_mask); >>> + err_mask = 0; >>> } >>> >>> if (err_mask & ~AC_ERR_DEV) >> >> >> I'm still using 2.6.32.9. Is it ok to apply this against 2.6.32.9? > > Yeah, that part hasn't changed lately so it should be okay. This patch seems to have done the trick Tejun. Thank you. Device mount and read access seem to be slower than with the IDE driver. But given how little I use the CD-ROM drive this initial impression may not accurately describe reality. Here's relevant dmesg entries from the patched kernel: scsi0 : ata_piix scsi1 : ata_piix ata1: PATA max UDMA/33 cmd 0x1f0 ctl 0x3f6 bmdma 0xf000 irq 14 ata2: PATA max UDMA/33 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0xf008 irq 15 ata1: port disabled. ignoring. ata2.00: ATAPI: Pioneer CD-ROM ATAPI Model DR-A24X 0102, E1.02, max MWDMA2 ata2.00: SETXFER failed w/ 100 ata2.00: configured for MWDMA2 scsi 1:0:0:0: CD-ROM PIONEER CD-ROM DR-A01S 1.02 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sr0: scsi3-mmc drive: 20x/20x xa/form2 cdda tray Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20 sr 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr0 Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index 4a28420..ca4a50a 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -3446,6 +3446,10 @@ static int ata_dev_set_mode(struct ata_device *dev) "NOSETXFER but PATA detected - can't " "skip SETXFER, might malfunction\n"); err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev); + if (err_mask) + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING, "SETXFER failed w/ %x\n", + err_mask); + err_mask = 0; } if (err_mask & ~AC_ERR_DEV)