From: "Indan Zupancic" <indan@nul.nu>
To: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul Mundt" <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
"Tejun Heo" <htejun@gmail.com>,
jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, garyhade@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:54:10 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1800.81.207.0.53.1179590050.squirrel@secure.samage.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <464B3505.20004@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 16, 2007 18:44, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On certain device/controller combination, 0xff status is asserted
> after reset and doesn't get cleared during 150ms post-reset wait. As
> 0xff status is interpreted as no device (for good reasons), this can
> lead to misdetection on such cases.
>
> This patch implements ata_wait_after_reset() which replaces the 150ms
> sleep and waits upto ATA_TMOUT_FF_WAIT if status is 0xff.
> ATA_TMOUT_FF_WAIT is currently 800ms which is enough for
> HHD424020F7SV00 to get detected but not enough for Quantum GoVault
> drive which is known to take upto 2s.
>
> Without parallel probing, spending 2s on 0xff port would incur too
> much delay on ata_piix's which use 0xff to indicate empty port and
> doesn't have SCR register, so GoVault needs to wait till parallel
> probing.
Using sata_sil (SiI 3512) with a ST3120827AS disk here.
For me the COMRESET happens after resume (s2ram):
[ 2.174342] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
[ 2.476407] ata1: device not ready (errno=-19), forcing hardreset
[ 2.476429] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 2.931793] ata1: COMRESET failed (errno=-19)
[ 2.931797] ata1: reset failed (errno=-19), retrying in 10 secs
[ 12.918421] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 12.921957] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[ 12.925908] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
With your patch applied the output is:
[ 2.173369] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
[ 2.475431] ata1: device not ready (errno=-19), forcing hardreset
[ 2.475453] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 3.592930] ata1: COMRESET failed (errno=-19)
[ 3.592934] ata1: reset failed (errno=-19), retrying in 9 secs
[ 12.917446] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 12.920969] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[ 12.924945] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
Resume takes now ten seconds or more, while it used to take only a few seconds,
what changed? A few kernel versions ago (2.6.21-rc or so?) it retried in 5 seconds
instead of 10, but even that is too long.
Maybe a silly question, but why do we wait for the harddisk to show up? Maybe that
makes a little bit of sense at bootup, but for resume from ram, where nothing is
supposed to have changed, it seems a bit strange. Why not wait when something tries
to access the harddisk or something?
I wonder if sil_pci_device_resume() and sd_resume() know about each other...
I'll disable sd_resume() and see how that goes.
Greetings,
Indan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-19 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-10 7:20 libata reset-seq merge broke sata_sil on sh Paul Mundt
2007-05-10 11:28 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-10 11:53 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-10 12:46 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-10 13:08 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-11 0:52 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-11 9:39 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-12 3:49 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-16 0:30 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-16 16:44 ` [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset() Tejun Heo
2007-05-17 0:50 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-17 0:59 ` Paul Mundt
2007-05-19 15:54 ` Indan Zupancic [this message]
2007-05-19 18:23 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-19 22:54 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-20 9:50 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-20 13:26 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-20 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-20 19:35 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-19 16:39 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-19 18:43 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-19 19:04 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-19 22:33 ` sd_resume redundant? [was: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()] Indan Zupancic
2007-05-20 9:54 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-20 14:27 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-20 17:17 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-20 19:47 ` Indan Zupancic
2007-05-21 6:02 ` [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset() Paul Mundt
2007-05-29 1:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 7:33 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1800.81.207.0.53.1179590050.squirrel@secure.samage.net \
--to=indan@nul.nu \
--cc=garyhade@us.ibm.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®