Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>> /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>> { "HTS541680J9SA00", "SB2IC7EP", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>> { "HTS541612J9SA00", "SBDIC7JP", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>> + { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>> { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>
>>>> /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>>
>>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>>> front and the others don't..
>>
>> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it. :-)
>
> I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless
> it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one
> (which seems to work fine with NCQ):
>
> gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
>
> Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380 , FwRev=V54OA52A,
> SerialNo= VFA200R208LH5J
> Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm
output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter. Hmm... Can
anyone verify these module strings?
--
tejun
-
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
