Alan Cox wrote:
>>> I'd rather know what is going on here. A drive can legitimately
>>> support LBA48 and HPA and refuse READ_NATIVE_MAX_EXT.
>> READ_NATIVE_MAX_EXT is mandatory if HPA && LBA48, no?
>
> No - and we hit this specific case in old IDE with some Maxtor drives.
Hmmm... Looking up the spec... This is from ATA8-ACS 4.11.1.
A device that implements the Host Protected Area feature set and
supports the 48-bit Address feature set shall implement the following
additional set of commands:
a) READ NATIVE MAX ADDRESS EXT
b) SET MAX ADDRESS EXT
Devices supporting this feature set shall set IDENTIFY DEVICE data
word 82 bit 10 to one.
Did older specs specify it differently?
>> Haven't tried that but the problem is that the drive times out
>> READ_NATIVE_MAX_EXT so it doesn't really matter whether the drive
>> succeeds READ_NATIVE_MAX or not. For more detail, please read the
>> following thread.
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/21322
>
> Thanks will do:
>
>> device reports in words 85-87 and 120, which libata currently doesn't
>> do. Are we leaving this out intentionally (for broken devices) or just
>> did we just miss it?
>
> We missed it. I assume the drive in the blacklist sets it correctly
> however ?
Yes, it does.
--
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
