From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 29 17:06:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACA61065675 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:06:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from barbara.xxx1975@libero.it) Received: from cp-out2.libero.it (cp-out2.libero.it [212.52.84.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F788FC1F for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:06:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from barbara.xxx1975@libero.it) Received: from libero.it (192.168.17.12) by cp-out2.libero.it (8.5.107) id 4A44B87D00245C9A for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:06:24 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:06:23 +0200 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sensitivity: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "barbara" To: "freebsd-current" X-XaM3-API-Version: 4.3 (R1) (B3pl25) X-SenderIP: 87.3.184.40 Subject: ata cable on CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 29 Jun 2009 17:06:26 -0000 Hi, sorry for asking again but nothing changed in the meanwhile. # uname -a FreeBSD satanasso.local.net 8.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Sat Feb 2= 1 05:58:23 CEST 2009 root at satanasso.local.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAT= ANASSO i386 In my dmesg I have: atapci2: port 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6,0x170-0x17= 7,0x376,0xfc00-0xfc0f at device 15.1 on pci0 ata0: on atapci2 ... ad0: DMA limited to UDMA33, device found non-ATA66 cable ad0: 152627MB at ata0-master UDMA33 ... ad1: 117246MB at ata0-slave UDMA133 # atacontrol info ata0 Master: ad0 ATA/ATAPI revision 7 Slave: ad1 ATA/ATAPI revision 7 So, if ad0 and ad1 are both attached with the same cable, why ad0 should = be limited while ad1 is not? On 7-STABLE, I have: ad0: 152627MB at ata0-master UDMA100 which seems correct. I've also replaced the cable with a brand new one, with the same results.= So, what's wrong? Anyone knows what could be the problem? I wonder if I should be worried about my HW. Thanks Barbara