Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
Tony
Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Of year 2010 - remember learning proper C will take him time.
> Becouse I never ever saw any code contributed by him
> despite the fact that I'm still open for patches, as
> I have told him upon request.
> Once exception was a broken patch which even didn't
> compile and couldn't solve the problem it was
> proclaiming to solve.
>
>
--
Get your free email from http://www.linuxmail.org
Powered by Outblaze
Anthony Spinillo wrote:
> Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
be really geald if you could just test whatever this
worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
I will include it.
>
> Tony
>
>
> Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
>
>>Of year 2010 - remember learning proper C will take him time.
>>Becouse I never ever saw any code contributed by him
>>despite the fact that I'm still open for patches, as
>>I have told him upon request.
>>Once exception was a broken patch which even didn't
>>compile and couldn't solve the problem it was
>>proclaiming to solve.
>>
>>
>
>
--
- phone: +49 214 8656 283
- job: eVision-Ventures AG, LEV .de (MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN!)
- langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Anthony Spinillo wrote:
> > Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
>
> Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
> Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
> at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
> Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
> be really geald if you could just test whatever this
> worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
> I will include it.
Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
>
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > Martin Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Of year 2010 - remember learning proper C will take him time.
> >>Becouse I never ever saw any code contributed by him
> >>despite the fact that I'm still open for patches, as
> >>I have told him upon request.
> >>Once exception was a broken patch which even didn't
> >>compile and couldn't solve the problem it was
> >>proclaiming to solve.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - phone: +49 214 8656 283
> - job: eVision-Ventures AG, LEV .de (MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN!)
> - langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 22:30, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> > Anthony Spinillo wrote:
> > > Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
> >
> > Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
> > Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
> > at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
> > Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
> > be really geald if you could just test whatever this
> > worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
> > I will include it.
>
> Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
If you look at why it fails it fails not because it isnt in the table
but because the PCI device has not been allocated resources properly by
the BIOS
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Anthony Spinillo wrote:
>>
>>>Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
>>
>>Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
>>Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
>>at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
>>Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
>>be really geald if you could just test whatever this
>>worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
>>I will include it.
>
>
> Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
Yes after looking it up I realized it's already there.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 02:13:45AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 22:30, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> > > Anthony Spinillo wrote:
> > > > Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
> > >
> > > Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
> > > Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
> > > at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
> > > Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
> > > be really geald if you could just test whatever this
> > > worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
> > > I will include it.
> >
> > Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
>
> If you look at why it fails it fails not because it isnt in the table
> but because the PCI device has not been allocated resources properly by
> the BIOS
That's right. Well, maybe kernel 2.5 PCI code can fix that better? Maybe
not, and in that case a BIOS upgrade is probably the way to go.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >>Anthony Spinillo wrote:
> >>
> >>>Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
> >>
> >>Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
> >>Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
> >>at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
> >>Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
> >>be really geald if you could just test whatever this
> >>worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
> >>I will include it.
> >
> >
> > Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
>
> Yes after looking it up I realized it's already there.
But as Alan pointer out, in 2.4 the missing PCI ID isn't the problem -
it would work with no tuning without it, but the fact the on-board BIOS
incorrectly assigns io-ranges to the PCI device is a problem we may have
on 2.5 as well.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anthony Spinillo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Back to my original problem, will there be a fix before 2010? ;)
>>>>
>>>>Well since you have already tyred yourself to poke at it.
>>>>Well please just go ahead and atd an entry to the table
>>>>at the end of piix.c which encompasses the device.
>>>>Do it by copying over the next familiar one and I would
>>>>be really geald if you could just test whatever this
>>>>worked. If yes well please send me just the patch and
>>>>I will include it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
>>
>>Yes after looking it up I realized it's already there.
>
>
> But as Alan pointer out, in 2.4 the missing PCI ID isn't the problem -
> it would work with no tuning without it, but the fact the on-board BIOS
> incorrectly assigns io-ranges to the PCI device is a problem we may have
> on 2.5 as well.
Well I don't know that much about the ever changing PCI/ACPI support
in kernel - the only thing I could imagine
would be that we sanitize the handling of it at the generic
"chipset quirk handling" there. Right during the "bios table
scan" time... (I mean drivers/pci/quirks.c)
The following function there looks like the right tool for this
purpose:
static void __init quirk_io_region(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned region,
unsigned size, int nr)
Well after looking closer I'm convinced that this is
the right place... will you have a look at this plase...
I'm more then busy enbough with other things right now.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:04:46AM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Well I don't know that much about the ever changing PCI/ACPI support
> in kernel - the only thing I could imagine
> would be that we sanitize the handling of it at the generic
> "chipset quirk handling" there. Right during the "bios table
> scan" time... (I mean drivers/pci/quirks.c)
>
> The following function there looks like the right tool for this
> purpose:
>
> static void __init quirk_io_region(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned region,
> unsigned size, int nr)
>
> Well after looking closer I'm convinced that this is
> the right place... will you have a look at this plase...
> I'm more then busy enbough with other things right now.
The PCI code under normal circumstances can fix the allocation problems
by itself (without any special quirks code), but in this case it simply
fails. Do you still have the original e-mail with the dmesg? I'd like to
look at that again ...
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
man, 2002-06-03 kl. 03:13 skrev Alan Cox:
> On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 22:30, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
>
> If you look at why it fails it fails not because it isnt in the table
> but because the PCI device has not been allocated resources properly by
> the BIOS
>
Back when I talked to Andre about this problem it sounded to me like he
said it was a genuine bug that was fixed in the ide-convert patches.
Maybe I'm confusing two issues here...
Cheers
Kjartan
Kjartan,
Please do not confuse them, they have a hard enough time reading.
The docs state it can only do X, but lets overclock it and do X+1.
Maybe the hardware is smart and knows which drivers are safe and sane.
Anthony, I sent you a mini-patch to add the 845G to the sane driver.
It will work, as Kjartan has stated. His system suffered the exact same
events.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 3 Jun 2002, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> man, 2002-06-03 kl. 03:13 skrev Alan Cox:
> > On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 22:30, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:36:35PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > > Note it works with 2.5 already. We have the device there.
> >
> > If you look at why it fails it fails not because it isnt in the table
> > but because the PCI device has not been allocated resources properly by
> > the BIOS
> >
>
> Back when I talked to Andre about this problem it sounded to me like he
> said it was a genuine bug that was fixed in the ide-convert patches.
> Maybe I'm confusing two issues here...
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> The PCI code under normal circumstances can fix the allocation problems
> by itself (without any special quirks code), but in this case it simply
> fails. Do you still have the original e-mail with the dmesg? I'd like to
> look at that again ...
No becouse It wasn't directed at me.