From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161189AbXBGLHo (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:07:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161136AbXBGLHo (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:07:44 -0500 Received: from [221.219.160.65] ([221.219.160.65]:47237 "EHLO freya.yggdrasil.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161189AbXBGLHn (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:07:43 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 832 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 06:07:43 EST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:55:53 +0800 From: "Adam J. Richter" Message-Id: <200702071055.l17AtrZf014135@freya.yggdrasil.com> To: Stephen.Clark@seclark.us Subject: Re: hdparm for lib_pata Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2007-02-04 Stephen Clark wrote: >I have had two different laptops that had to have boot time command line >overrides to get the >driver to allow the hardware work at what it was spec-ed at. Do you know if these drives were advertising less capability than they were spec-ed at? Do you recall if the IDE driver without kernel arguments printed its rationale for reverting to the slower setting? I ask because I'd like to know if this sort of thing can ever happen with libata. If so, then that is yet another reason to have the ability to override DMA settings from user level in libata. Adam Richter