Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
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?
Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings
now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's
before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the advantage
of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-)
Perhaps ones sold directly by Hitachi are Hitachi, while ones sold
through OEMs are no-name?
Petr
-
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
