Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:07:23 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Alexandre Martins <alexandre.martins@netasq.com> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, Fabien Thomas <fabien.thomas@netasq.com>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>, Fabien Thomas <fabient@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Troubles with VIA VX900 chipset Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=Bhq5_WZAD-hD=91g9Y6cBaZq1qHEZ6VUvV3rM0%2BK%2BZA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2304698.vixPKsOToE@pc-alex.netasq.com> References: <2304698.vixPKsOToE@pc-alex.netasq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! Would you please create a PR with the patches attached? That way it's not lost. Thanks! -a On 24 October 2013 06:56, Alexandre Martins <alexandre.martins@netasq.com>wrote: > Dear, > > We have seen some issues with the VIA VX900 chipset. The main trouble is > that > some SATA hard drive are not seen by the kernel (BIOS and boot-loader are > OK). > > After investigations, it seems that during the initialisation of the > controler, some reset commands are send via "ata_via_sata_reset" fonction. > Into the chipset documentation, there is a warning about successive reset > commands, and software must waiting the "BUSY" flag is clear, before send > another reset. I have added a "DELAY(10000)" between the second call of > "ata_sata_phy_reset" and the call of "ata_generic_reset" and the problem > disapear. > > I also made a more complex fix which check the "BUSY" flag. > > Which fix of delai checking is the better one ? > > Best Regards > > -- > Alexandre Martins > NETASQ -- We secure IT > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=Bhq5_WZAD-hD=91g9Y6cBaZq1qHEZ6VUvV3rM0%2BK%2BZA>