From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261954AbVCTBE3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:04:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261960AbVCTBE2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:04:28 -0500 Received: from sccimhc91.asp.att.net ([63.240.76.165]:20201 "EHLO sccimhc91.asp.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261954AbVCTBET (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:04:19 -0500 From: Jay Roplekar To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: SATA VIA8237 Problems (Install) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:03:35 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 Cc: jay_roplekar@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503191903.36102.jay_roplekar@hotmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have a KT600 based motherboard & I am planning to set up my new system using that. It has onboard via 8237 sata {raid, cough cough} controller. I am planning to use a single sata disk (I am not interested in raid). The various distro installers are having tough time noticing a brand new western digital disk. Following is the dmesg from the installer : ## libata version 1.10 loaded. sata_via version 1.1 ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:0f.0[B] -> GSI 11 (level, low) -> IRQ 11 sata_via(0000:00:0f.0): routed to hard irq line 11 ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xB000 ctl 0xB402 bmdma 0xC000 irq 11 ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xB800 ctl 0xBC02 bmdma 0xC008 irq 11 ata1: dev 0 cfg 49:3030 82:0078 83:0078 84:0000 85:0000 86:3fff 87:0010 88:000f ata1: no dma/lba ata1: dev 0 not supported, ignoring scsi0 : sata_via ata2: no device found (phy stat 00000000) scsi1 : sata_via ### Is the line "ata1: dev 0 not supported, ignoring" expected? Is there something basic I am missing. I would appreciate any help. I have tried to digest info on Jeff Garzik's linux.yyz.us/sata/ and also www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Hardware/sata.html but its quite possible I might have misinterpreted it. FWIW, the installer is 2.6.11-1 based and following modules are present in the system. Thanks, Jay #### odule Size Used by Not tainted parport_pc 28805 0 - Live 0xd0a1c000 parport 39689 1 parport_pc, Live 0xd09d5000 dm_snapshot 17797 0 - Live 0xd097a000 dm_mirror 25389 0 - Live 0xd0998000 dm_zero 2497 0 - Live 0xd081b000 dm_mod 61013 3 dm_snapshot,dm_mirror,dm_zero, Live 0xd0a25000 xfs 586897 0 - Live 0xd0c0f000 exportfs 8513 1 xfs, Live 0xd0902000 jfs 203897 0 - Live 0xd0ae9000 reiserfs 267317 0 - Live 0xd0aa6000 ext3 133065 0 - Live 0xd0a39000 jbd 79065 1 ext3, Live 0xd09fc000 msdos 8641 0 - Live 0xd0906000 raid6 107345 0 - Live 0xd09e0000 raid5 28737 0 - Live 0xd098f000 xor 15305 2 raid6,raid5, Live 0xd0939000 raid1 21441 0 - Live 0xd08ab000 raid0 8513 0 - Live 0xd08fe000 sata_via 8389 0 - Live 0xd08d0000 libata 47429 1 sata_via, Live 0xd0982000 via_rhine 27209 0 - Live 0xd0931000 mii 4929 1 via_rhine, Live 0xd0894000 uhci_hcd 33497 0 - Live 0xd090a000 ehci_hcd 39245 0 - Live 0xd0926000 sr_mod 19173 0 - Live 0xd08ca000 sd_mod 19137 0 - Live 0xd08b2000 scsi_mod 138665 3 libata,sr_mod,sd_mod, Live 0xd09a0000 edd 9889 0 - Live 0xd0890000 floppy 63729 0 - Live 0xd0915000