From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 6 00:01:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684551065676; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 00:01:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsdmail@dnswatch.com) Received: from fast.dnswatch.com (fast.dnswatch.com [168.103.150.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2048C8FC08; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 00:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www.dnswatch.com (localhost.dnswatch.com [127.0.0.1]) by fast.dnswatch.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o5601CnR069332; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:01:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsdmail@dnswatch.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net ([168.103.150.20]) (DNSwatchWebMail authenticated user infos) by www.dnswatch.com with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4C0A295E.5060809@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C09E783.9090007@FreeBSD.org> <4C0A295E.5060809@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:01:19 -0700 (PDT) From: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com To: "Alexander Motin" User-Agent: DNSwatchWebMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: why does UATA/133 == UATA/100 on amd64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 00:01:21 -0000 Greetings Alexander, and thank you for your reply. On Sat, June 5, 2010 3:39 am, Alexander Motin wrote: > fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: >> On Fri, June 4, 2010 10:58 pm, Alexander Motin wrote: >> >>> Peter Jeremy wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-Jun-04 16:36:08 -0700, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> After _finally_ making the correct decisions to install amd64 on >>>>> an AMD64 system. I was able to make/build/install world && kernel, >>>>> I see >>>>> a difference in drive recognition. >>>> Can you please do a verbose boot and post the resultant dmesg >>>> somewhere (preferably with your USB DVD drive connected). >>>> >>>> >>>>> kernel: ata3-master: pio=PIO4 wdma=WDMA2 udma=UDMA133 cable=40 >>>>> wire kernel: ad6: 476940MB at >>>>> ata3-master SATA300 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> kernel: ata3-master: pio=PIO4 wdma=WDMA2 udma=UDMA133 cable=40 >>>>> wire kernel: ad6: setting UDMA100 >>>>> kernel: ad6: 476940MB at ata3-master >>>>> UDMA100 >>>>> SATA 3Gb/s >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The 'UDMA' numbers are meaningless for SATA controllers/drives. >>>> >>>> >>> The 'UDMA' numbers are meaningless for _native_ SATA >>> controllers/drives. >>> >>> They may be not meaningless for legacy SATA devices, using SATA->PATA >>> bridge inside. Some bridges do not support UDMA133 on PATA part, so >>> ata(4) prefers not to use it. But in this case it is indeed >>> meaningless. >> >> If it's not already apparent. The board has an AMD 880G chipset, that >> provides RAID support on 6 ports @ 6GBs. Now, from a purely logistical >> standpoint. The numbers _can't_ be meaningless. It's clear that the >> kernel is making a "judgment call" here: kernel: ad6: setting UDMA100 > > It is impossible to detect SATA->PATA bridge presence, so kernel has to > always follow worst scenario. But as I have said, for this particular > device this value affects nothing. > >> The "judgment call" on both GENERIC/i386, and GENERIC/amd64 was never >> made. The capability of both the port && the drive were accepted. Both >> cases were booted using "verbose" (5). Please understand, I'm not >> attempting to be argumentative here. I just observe this to be true. In >> other words; it must have _some_ meaning - no? > > I have feeling that you have updated your sources while building custom > kernel. I can't explain difference you have shown by other reasons. Yes, that's a reasonable assessment. My "sig" indicates the current version (8.1-PRERELEASE). As a rule, I always cvsup to -STABLE after an install for security reasons, Which is apparently 8.1-PRERELEASE. While the last server I updated (i386) returns 8.0-STABLE. So if I understand you correctly. Unless I have reason to believe the STATA port(s) are meerly a PATA->SATA bridge, I should simply ignore the kernel output regarding them. Thank you again Alexander, for your reply. --Chris > > -- > Alexander Motin > > -- kern: FreeBSD 8.1-PRERELEASE amd64 MB: MSI 880GMA-E45 (socket: AM3) CPU: AMD Phenom X3 440 (3 core) @3.5Ghz RAM: 2 4Gb CORSAIR DDR3 DualChannel PC1600