Adam Agnew agnew@cs.umd.edu writes:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Gehlbach wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Andrew Ip wrote:
actually, as near as we could tell the data was getting in to memory. But once it jumped to the payload it never came back.
Interesting. What payload are u using? I have been using etherboot which is pretty stable. However, Filo will be my next target.
Filo works very well. I am working with Takeshi to put bzImage boot into it also.
Actually, my ide problems were with filo, but the ide code is the same, I think-- it all is from etherboot AFAIK. My CF drive works (128M) but 1.2G WD Caviar fails.
There are slight differences between the ide code from my etherboot patch (i believe this is where takeshi took the polled ide code from) and the polled ide code in etherboot development branches.
Actually the FILO polled IDE derives most directly from etherboot 5.1.
There are a couple of small differences but nothing that looked too substantial. The biggest is the ide_bus_floating() that attempts to quickly see if an IDE cable is absent.
If you're having trouble with one, it may be worth trying the other. Takeshi really did a fine job with Filo and I'd like to see if replace my etherboot patch for its admitted hackishness alone :)
FILO does look good from what I have seen of it.
Before anyone can guess anything we need a lot more detailed bug report than what has been seen so far.
Steve how does your 1.2G Caviar fail? Is it not detected or is the problem something else?
SONE do you really have a system that with no IDE disk has the BSY bit stuck high. Or is that just what happens when you scan PIO ports that are not connected to and IDE controller. As far as I know that is the biggest difference between our drivers. You scan PIO space and I primarily scan pci space for IDE controllers.
Eric