Dear Sergei, > > I do not test this driver, but I think it have the same problem, because > > it have the same algorithm for timings calculation. > > I quickly looked thru both drivers and the algorithm seemed different. :-) I don't think so... > > If you will see "cycle" value greater then 63, then problem exists. > > I thought the problem was with active pulse width, not total cycle time... The problem was - the same "cycle" variable used to set up NRD_CYCLE (max value = 127) and NCS_RD_PULSE (max value = 63). Where NRD_CYCLE, NCS_RD_PULSE names from datasheet for AT91SAM9. If NCS_RD_PULSE > 63, then overflow occur and pulse is much longer then required. For the 132 MHz, driver use NCS_RD_PULSE = 80 at device detection moment on my board. Calculated cycle in at91_ide is the same as for pata_at91 driver. > > Generally, I does not see any reasons to use at91_ide, because ATA > > drivers subsystem going to replace IDE drivers. > > There may be reasons -- like larger thruput in PIO mode (you have to check > this though -- but generally libata seems very slow in PIO). Anyway, it > doesn't mean that the bugs in IDE drivers should be ignored, and the > replacemtn will not happen anytime soon (not all IDE drivers are ported to > libata yet). I will send next patch where this driver corrected and tested. Best regards! -- Igor Plyatov -- 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
