Lubomír Bulej wrote:
Hello,
thanks for the insight - I can only (somewhat) parse the simplest of ATA
errors related to bad sectors :-)
The "applying bridge limits" part is interesting, that would imply the
device's identify data doesn't properly indicate it's actually a SATA
device so the kernel assumes it's a PATA device behind a SATA bridge.
I don't think it's related to the problem but it does suggest that
whoever designed the SATA interface on that thing probably didn't do a
ton of validation on it..
It well may be, who knows - there is basically no detailed info on the
product. Is there a way to find out, apart from taking it apart and
taking a peek at the chips? :-)
Likely not, but it seems pretty much impossible that it is, if it
reports NCQ support..
BTW, can the kernel assumption of "pata-behind-sata-bridge" cause any
problems?
It looks like all that does is limit the transfer rate to UDMA5 (which
doesn't actually make any difference if it's really SATA) and limits
maximum sectors per transfer to 200.
Anyway, I guess that's what we get when memory manufacturers (let's say
assemblers) start delving into persistent storage. I was a bit dazed by
the "oh so distinguishing" model name/number...
Best regards,
Lubomir
--
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
