From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752754Ab3LPU2S (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:28:18 -0500 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.4]:50901 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926Ab3LPU2P (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:28:15 -0500 Message-ID: <1387225692.14970.13.camel@x41.thuisdomein> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ahci: only attach ICH6-M if it's in SATA mode From: Paul Bolle To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:28:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20131216155136.GF32509@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1387190097.9255.31.camel@x41.thuisdomein> <20131216155136.GF32509@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2013 20:28:12.0548 (UTC) FILETIME=[57853440:01CEFA9D] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:51 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'm not quite sure about this one. The patch seems correct on the > surface but given how old ich6 is at this point, the general > crappiness of BIOS on ahci front in that era, and that the existing > code has been working fine for all these years make me very reluctant > to change it. e.g. I don't think CLASS_STORAGE_SATA was the only one. > They used different class for raid too. Well, raid should only be relevant for ICH6R (which has its own device ID). The datasheet I've been staring at suggests that ICH6-M is hardwired to either use PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SATA or PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE. > It should be able to figure > out things given enough test cases but I don't think we have that > anymore and the benefit (avoding probe failure messages) doesn't seem > to justify the risk. That's your call, obviously. And I don't think that hardware like this is used widely to run release candidates, if at all, so we can't even consider a see-who-screams-when-their-setup-breaks approach. Thanks, Paul Bolle