From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 5 01:17:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0781816A4CE for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-53484.0x50a6c9a6.abnxx9.customer.tele.dk [80.166.201.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075F643D3F for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:17:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i059EYmd036080; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:14:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i059EYfW036079; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:14:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos) From: Soren Schmidt Message-Id: <200401050914.i059EYfW036079@spider.deepcore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20040105090227.GA44306@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Divacky Roman Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:14:34 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-mail-scanned: by DeepCore Virus & Spam killer v1.3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:56:20 -0800 cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: slow probe for ata channel with only an atapi master on it X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:17:09 -0000 It seems Divacky Roman wrote: > I have something similar but with different numbers of stat and error > stat=0x50 err=0x50 lsb=0x50 msb=0x50 > > something should be added to ata_reset to understand this That will be difficult as stat=0x50 means and that is a valid status for a device that is *present*. That all regs apparently returns the same (bogus) values cannot be safely used either, as that is typically also the case when a device is about to become ready. However there might be a way to combine the test for same values and looking for BUSY, but experience says that we then will find new bogus devices that fails that as well.. The upshot is that I try to do what is possible to avoid the 31sec delay that the spec calls for, but if you have HW that doesnt comply you can in some situations get the delay, well, tough... I just wish firmware writers would stick to the specs they are writing against, but I guess that is just asking too much these days :( -Søren Yes I know it works under windows!!