Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 02:35:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 02:35:09 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:39689 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 02:35:06 -0400 Message-ID: <3CFB0063.3070309@evision-ventures.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:36:35 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020523 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FUD or FACTS ?? but a new FLAME! In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andre Hedrick wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > >>I apology for flames Andre, after some thinking I came to >>conclusion that if speaking hardware you are generally right. >> >>I hope we can together resolve transport layer issues in 2.5. > > > Bartlomiej, > > Thanks, and we worked well in the past togather, and there has never been > a communication problem with you. > > Lets hope so, and please change the maintainer file to your name. > As you were in mind in the past to replace me when I burned out. O co chodzi? Po prostu powinno si? przenie?? dwa typy host chip?w intela do kategori - "mo?e dzia?a jak chcesz to spr?buj": Ulf Axelsson to wszystko dawno ju? rozwi?za?: Hi Martin! (Note: This mail (and myself) is intentionally _NOT_ intended to go anywhere near linux-kernel and the regular flame fests. I'm as anonymous as one can be ;-) I have been reading the stuff about the difference between ATA/100 and ATA/133 talking about clock cycles, buffer sizes, transmission directions and what not and were quite unable to understand what the point was until I looked at the public Intel ICH4 spec (the one available to us mortals without connections :-) ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/manuals/29860002.pdf Intel do state that the ICH4/82801DB supports only ATA/100 not ATA/133. Looking through some reviews on the net on the 845E/G they do say the same thing. In the light of that perhaps the code in drivers/ide/piix.c stating that the ICH4 does ATA/133 is a bit optimistic and should be moved to the "try it if you want to " CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PIIX_TRY133 option. Of course Vojtek might have better info that says otherwise. <<>> static struct piix_ide_chip { unsigned short id; unsigned char flags; } piix_ide_chips[] = { { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801DB_9, PIIX_UDMA_133 | PIIX_PINGPONG }, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ /* Intel 82801DB ICH4 */ { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801CA_11, PIIX_UDMA_100 | PIIX_PINGPONG }, /* Intel 82801CA ICH3/ICH3-S */ { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801CA_10, PIIX_UDMA_100 | PIIX_PINGPONG }, /* Intel 82801CAM ICH3-M */ { PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9, PIIX_UDMA_100 | PIIX_PINGPONG }, <<>> Things would be easier if "you know who" could just say that according to public specs the ICH4 does not support ATA/133 instead of all that technical talk...... Regards, Ulf PS. It would be kind if you could tell me where the source to the new ide-info version you talked about can be found? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/