Re: VIA VT6330 PCI-E Combo Controller not fully supported

[Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:23 AM,  <chrisfu@mastodon.hardc0re.org.uk> wrote:
>>>  From the info on the URL above, it appears that the PATA functionality
>>> is identical to that of the VT6415 PATA controller, support for which
>>> was added in 2.6.28. The mailing list post made regarding the patch that
>>> was submitted can be found here:
>>> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0902.2/01428.html
>>
>> If it is similar enough to the existing controllers then you may be able
>> to just add the device ID into pata_via in a similar fashion..
>>
>
> Thanks for your feedback Robert.  I went to do exactly that yesterday
> evening,
> and found some interesting stuff.  The PATA functionality of the VT6330
> identifies itself as the VT6415 and uses the exact same pci_id, meaning that
> support was already added in the mailing list post I quoted in my original
> mail.
>
> The perplexing thing is that the device is unclaimed even though that by all
> accounts, it should be picked up.
>
> A snippet from dmesg:
>
> [    4.970261] pata_via 0000:01:00.1: version 0.3.3
> [    4.970637] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LN6A] enabled at IRQ 19
> [    4.970643] pata_via 0000:01:00.1: PCI INT A -> Link[LN6A] -> GSI 19
> (level,
> low) -> IRQ 19
> [    4.970709] pata_via 0000:01:00.1: PCI INT A disabled
> [    4.970774] pata_acpi 0000:01:00.1: PCI INT A -> Link[LN6A] -> GSI 19
> (level,
> low) -> IRQ 19
> [    4.970799] pata_acpi 0000:01:00.1: setting latency timer to 64
> [    4.970809] pata_acpi 0000:01:00.1: PCI INT A disabled
>
> I guess I'll just keep probing and see what I can come up with.  The next
> step
> is trying to find out if the changes to support the VT6415 worked for
> *anyone*. :)

I think the PCI ID portion is OK, you wouldn't even get the lines
about enabling the interrupt if it wasn't detecting a matching device.
I'm suspecting that ata_pci_sff_init_one is failing out for some
reason, you might need to scatter some printks around in that code to
figure out why..