Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:20:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:20:04 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:22769 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:20:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] pdc20265 problem. From: Alan Cox To: Nick Orlov Cc: lkml In-Reply-To: <20020803012204.GA9047@nikolas.hn.org> References:

<20020803012204.GA9047@nikolas.hn.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 03 Aug 2002 14:41:23 +0100 Message-Id: <1028382083.31733.34.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1021 Lines: 23 On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 02:22, Nick Orlov wrote: > I think that question is _how often_ pdc20265 is used as primary > controller? Actually I know a lot of mobos with pdc20265 as additional > controller (and I don't see the one that uses it as primary). > > Don't forget about "ide=reverse" parameter that allows you to treat > pdc20265 as primary if by default kernel treat pdc20265 as secondary. > > So I don't see _any_ reason to force pdc20265 to be primary (onboard) > unless CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE is set. This is the wrong question. The right question for a stable kernel is "Why isnt it behaving precisely the same way as it did before the merge". What got confused in the _FORCE stuff. Why did _FORCE checks even get into the raid probe not another config option... - 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/