Loading both the pata_atiixp and the ahci driver causes problems
If you try to load both the pata_atiixp and the ahci driver (for the same ATI SB600 adapter), very strange things happen. The AHCI driver churns for three minutes or so, spewing messages like this, then nothing works:
<6>ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) <4>ata3.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xec)
<4>ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x104)
Shouldn't it be able to tell the device has already been claimed by some other driver?
(This is kernel 2.6.21-rc, and it's almost certainly happening in 2.6.20 as well.)
Quoted 11 lines · Chuck Ebbert
If you try to load both the
pata_atiixpand the ahci driver (for the same ATI SB600 adapter), very strange things happen. The AHCI driver churns for three minutes or so, spewing messages like this, then nothing works:<6>ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) <4>ata3.00: qc timeout (cmd
0xec)
<4>ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x104)Shouldn't it be able to tell the device has already been claimed by some other driver?
One would assume it'd fail to grab the PCI IO ranges twice? I haven't looked at the code but I have seen this bug mentioned elsewhere so I might well end up having to do that yet :-)
Jon.
Quoted 11 lines · Jon Masters
Quoted 8 lines · Chuck Ebbert
If you try to load both the
pata_atiixpand the ahci driver (for the same ATI SB600 adapter), very strange things happen. The AHCI driver churns for three minutes or so, spewing messages like this, then nothing works:<6>ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) <4>ata3.00: qc timeout (cmd
0xec)
<4>ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x104)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Shouldn't it be able to tell the device has already been claimed by some other driver?
One would assume it'd fail to grab the PCI IO ranges twice? I haven't looked at the code but I have seen this bug mentioned elsewhere so I might well end up having to do that yet :-)
Dunno much about sb600 but ahci and pata_atiixp are probably using separate IO regions && separate PCI functions.
Conke, care to educate us a bit here?
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Quoted 13 lines · Tejun Heo
Quoted 12 lines · Jon Masters
Quoted 10 lines · Chuck Ebbert
If you try to load both the
pata_atiixpand the ahci driver (for the same ATI SB600 adapter), very strange things happen. The AHCI driver churns for three minutes or so, spewing messages like this, then nothing works:<6>ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) <4>ata3.00: qc timeout (cmd
0xec)
<4>ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x104) Shouldn't it be able to tell the device has already been claimed by some other driver?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
One would assume it'd fail to grab the PCI IO ranges twice? I haven't looked at the code but I have seen this bug mentioned elsewhere so I might well end up having to do that yet :-)
Dunno much about sb600 but ahci and
pata_atiixpare probably using separate IO regions && separate PCI functions.
Yeah. I actually thought about this whole issue a bit more recently - things like SATA/PATA interference when you've got a part that emulates legacy functionality so can appear as two different kinds of device - since I don't think my brain was really bothering to listen before. Words were going in, but it chose to ignore what was being said.
Only thing that comes to mind is in-driver logic/driver loading ordering hack combinations. At least if you've got loadable modules, you've got a fighting chance of fixing this kind of situation - built-in and you need to fight with whatever ordering exists in the array of init functions.
Jon.
P.S. Guess this means I need to admit I was wrong and apologize to Zaitcev sometime too in relation to another discussion...bah :P
Hello, Jon.
Quoted 8 lines · Jon Masters
Quoted 2 lines
Dunno much about sb600 but ahci and
pata_atiixpare probably using separate IO regions && separate PCI functions.Yeah. I actually thought about this whole issue a bit more recently - things like SATA/PATA interference when you've got a part that emulates legacy functionality so can appear as two different kinds of device - since I don't think my brain was really bothering to listen before. Words were going in, but it chose to ignore what was being said.
Dunno about the history. Oh well, as long as the problem gets fixed.
Quoted 4 lines
Only thing that comes to mind is in-driver logic/driver loading ordering hack combinations. At least if you've got loadable modules, you've got a fighting chance of fixing this kind of situation - built-in and you need to fight with whatever ordering exists in the array of init functions.
Not sure whether it applies to sb600 directly but libata policy for this type of situation is..
* always prefer the native / more capable (read ahci) interface over emulated SFF interface.
* program the device and update PCI header using a PCI quirk such that module loading order or BIOS setting doesn't affect which driver gets attached. Note that if the controller needs to programmed in specific way, the quirk also needs to be called during resume. In this case, the function for SFF interface can simply be disabled.
Please take a look at the JMB quirk in drivers/pci/quirks.c in the latest libata-dev#upstream tree for details.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Quoted 2 lines · Tejun Heo
Please take a look at the JMB quirk in
drivers/pci/quirks.cin the latest libata-dev#upstream tree for details.
For interest, I will, thanks for the info.
Jon.
Quoted 13 lines · Tejun Heo
Quoted 12 lines · Jon Masters
Quoted 10 lines · Chuck Ebbert
If you try to load both the
pata_atiixpand the ahci driver (for the same ATI SB600 adapter), very strange things happen. The AHCI driver churns for three minutes or so, spewing messages like this, then nothing works:<6>ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) <4>ata3.00: qc timeout (cmd
0xec)
<4>ata3.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x104) Shouldn't it be able to tell the device has already been claimed by some other driver?
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
One would assume it'd fail to grab the PCI IO ranges twice? I haven't looked at the code but I have seen this bug mentioned elsewhere so I might well end up having to do that yet :-)
Dunno much about sb600 but ahci and
pata_atiixpare probably using separate IO regions && separate PCI functions.Conke, care to educate us a bit here?
The really funny part is that it works for some if they use:
pci=noacpi,irqpoll