Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>>> The second patch is essentially identical to what you did the > >>>>> one liner. Can you please check it once more? I'll prepare > >>>>> old-sequence hardreset in the meantime. > >>>> Okay, here's the old-sequence hardreset patch. This should have > >>>> the highest chance of working. This patch should be applied on > >>>> top of the vt6420 patch. > >>> On top of which patch? > >>> I just tried to apply it on top of: > >>> - your last week patch > >>> - your two patches of this week > >>> and it does *not* apply on top of anyone... > >> Arghh... Sorry. I sent the wrong version. This patch is against > >> #upstream while I should have sent the one against #upstream-fixes. > >> > >>> Couldn't you either check first your patch or (better) just send a > >>> patch against vanilla 2.6.18-rc4-mm2? > >> I've attached whole sata_via.c to the other mail. I think that should > >> do the trick. > > It didn't (tested by overwriting 2.6.18-rc4-mm2's driver). > > I tried a few reset methods combinations w/os success. > > Like in other faillure cases, the driver saw the two links but failed > > to see the hd attached to the second sata link. > > Hmmm.. That's very weird. The detection sequence is almost identical > to the original code. Argh..... Any ideas? btw, I tried again with rc1 and rc2. here, the diff on sata-via against 2.6.18 are trivials and irrelevant so it looks like the issue is introduce by core changes in libata (that maybe uncover a previously hidded issue in sata-via?) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
