On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 21:29, Lyle Bainbridge wrote: > Hi, > > I can say much about the IRQ probe failure, but I do have an issue > with the scanning of drives. Pete is correct that the MAX_HWIFS > definition determines the number of ide interfaces, and ide code > will scan for drives on all of them, even if most interfaces are > not present. In my case I know that I have only one hw interface > and was able to set this to one (1). That way no time is wasted > in scanning non-existent interfaces. Saves a few 10s of milliseconds > at boot time :-) It won't 'fix' the IRQ probe failure you are > seeing, but you'll certainly avoid it. > > Still, I can't explain why the scanning of non-existent hwifs was > ever done this way. If I'm not mistaken, this appears to be something new in 2.4.21-pre4, where the ide subsystem is a backport of 2.5. It would be interesting to boot an x86 2.4.21-pre-something with the same ide subsystem and see if it behaves the same way. Pete > I wonder if this was rectified when the IDE > subsystem was refactored in the 2.5 kernel. I know this new IDE > code was back ported to 2.4.21 also. Let's hope things are a done > a little bit better in this new code. > > Lyle > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org > > [mailto:linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org] On Behalf Of Pete Popov > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 1:35 PM > > To: Hartvig Ekner > > Cc: linux-mips > > Subject: Re: IDE initialization on AU1500? > > > > > > Hi Hartvig, > > > > I added the mailing list to the CC because someone else might > > have a better answer. > > > > On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 10:55, Hartvig Ekner wrote: > > > Hi Pete, > > > > > > I upgraded to the latest 2.4, and all the end_irq warnings > > which were > > > there a few weeks back are gone. > > > > Yep, I got rid of the debug print :). I had put that print in > > irq.c a long time ago, and it never caused any problems. But > > back then, the irq probing routines were null in MIPS, so we > > never saw the print. > > > > > Now it looks like this: > > > > > > Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00beta-2.4 > > > ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with > > > idebus=xx > > > PDC20268: IDE controller at PCI slot 00:0d.0 > > > PDC20268: chipset revision 2 > > > PDC20268: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later > > > PDC20268: ROM enabled at 0x000dc000 > > > ide0: BM-DMA at 0x0520-0x0527, BIOS settings: hda:pio, hdb:pio > > > ide1: BM-DMA at 0x0528-0x052f, BIOS settings: hdc:pio, hdd:pio > > > hdc: IBM-DTLA-307030, ATA DISK drive > > > blk: queue 802f7a58, I/O limit 4095Mb (mask 0xffffffff) > > > hdg: IRQ probe failed (0xfffbfffe) > > > hdg: IRQ probe failed (0xfffbbffe) > > > hdi: probing with STATUS(0x24) instead of ALTSTATUS(0x00) > > > hdi: IRQ probe failed (0xfffbfffe) > > > hdi: IRQ probe failed (0xfffbbffe) > > > hdk: probing with STATUS(0x24) instead of ALTSTATUS(0x00) > > > ide1 at 0x510-0x517,0x51a on irq 1 > > > hdc: host protected area => 1 > > > hdc: 60036480 sectors (30739 MB) w/1916KiB Cache, > > CHS=59560/16/63, UDMA(100) > > > Partition check: > > > hdc: hdc1 hdc2 hdc3 hdc4 > > > > > > Are the "IRQ probe failed" and "probing with ..." messages expected > > > and ok? > > > > Well, since the ide subsystem is probing all the drives, and > > there are no drives to be found, I would have to say that the > > failures are to be expected. > > > > > Is there something platform > > > specific which tells the IDE driver to look for 11 drives > > (hda-hdk) or > > > what is > > > going on here? > > > > include/asm-mips/ide.h defines MAX_HWIFS 10, if not already defined. > > > > > As you can probably tell, I don't have any specific knowledge about > > > how the IDE initialization works and how it interacts with the > > > platform specific code (if at all), but I would somehow > > imagine that > > > unless the IDE drivers detect an IDE controller (as done > > above: ide0, > > > ide1) no probing should be performed for drives outside the > > possible > > > range of the detected IDE controllers (hda-hdd in this case). > > > > That's a good point. I don't know what's going on, which is > > why I added the mailing list to the CC. Something seems not > > quite right. > > > > Pete > > > > >
