From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265976AbTGLQCa (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:02:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266114AbTGLQCa (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:02:30 -0400 Received: from mion.elka.pw.edu.pl ([194.29.160.35]:49865 "EHLO mion.elka.pw.edu.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265976AbTGLQAS (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:00:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:14:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook cc: Samuel Flory , Chad Kitching , Steven Dake , Subject: Re: IDE/Promise 20276 FastTrack RAID Doesn't work in 2.4.21, patchattached to fix In-Reply-To: <200307121611.13863.ruth@ivimey.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > Various people wrote: > > >>Ignore FastTrak BIOS and configure controller for RAID > > >>CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE > > >> Forces the driver to use the ATA-RAID capabilities, overriding the > > >> BIOS configuration of the controller. Do not enable if you are > > >> using Promise's binary module. This option is compatible with the > > >> ataraid driver. > > >What about this: > > Much better, but > > >Ignore FastTrak BIOS > > >CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE > > > Forces the driver to use FastTrak controller even if it was disabled > > > by BIOS for Promise software RAID driver. > > This one might confuse people thinking we mean the ataraid driver, and > > not the binary only driver. > > My personal experience of the FastTrak device is that you must always "force" > it if you just want JBOD. [Note: I have never used a promise device as the > 1st controller, because the Southbridge ide controller always comes in > first]. Now, I have never tried using ataraid or the promise bin-only driver, > so I guess there are occasions when not forcing is a good thing. I assume > from other comments that no-force is the right option for the Promise > binary-only driver? Yes. > I am much of the opinion that "CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE" should be a run-time > option so that it can be set up correctly for the user's machine even when > the kernel is a vendor one with pre-selected config choices. If this doesn't > happen, in some cases (e.g. installing a new kernel) the user's disks just > disappear and there isn't much you can do about it :-( See my comments at > the end of the mail for more on this. Agreed. > > Maybe: > > Forces the driver to use FastTrak controller even if it was disabled > > by BIOS for Promise's binary only software RAID driver. > > > > > Say Y if you do not use Promise's software RAID or > > > if you want to use ataraid driver. > > > > > > Say N if you want to use Promise's binary module. > > I don't like this one, as at least on first reading I completely misunderstood > it -- it seemed as if you only had RAID choices, no non-RAID ones. I see now > that Y gives you a (veiled) non-RAID choice. Is the following better? There is "or" not "and", but I see your point. > Don't reserve the FastTrak controller for the Promise proprietary RAID driver. > Say Y if you: > - want to use attached disks quite independently; > - want to use attached disks in a Linux Software RAID (mdX) array; > - want to use attached disks with the Linux 'ataraid' driver. You must > also enable the option CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC. Better: no "Say Y" description et all :-). > Say N if you want to use Promise's proprietary, binary only, Software > RAID driver. Above with "saying N will cause ide driver to skip Promise controllers" should be sufficent. > I think a better configuration setup than this would be a multiple- choice > arrangement that subsumes CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE, CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC > and CONFIG_PDC202XX_NEW option into one question, like this: > > Configuration of the FastTrak IDE controller > CONFIG_PDC202XX_MODE > Please select the appropriate driver for this controller: > [ ] Promise proprietary, binary only, Software RAID driver > [ ] Linux GPL version of Promise Software RAID driver > [ ] Standard IDE driver, for disks that can be used quite independently > No way! This will make it even uglier. Command line parameter is a superior solution. > However, this still has the problem of what happens if you have multiple > controllers and wish to use them in 2 or more different configurations (e.g. > 2 disks on 1st controller ataraid, 2 disks on another controller as JBOD). > > Therefore, IMO the best setup would be to provide options that enable > possibilities (e.g enable you to use ataraid by compiling the code) but that > the actual use of the disks is defined in a module or command-line switch > (e.g. "pdc_ide2=ataraid,pdc_ide3=jbod"). In this case, we will keep the > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC and CONFIG_PDC202XX_NEW options but they do not > imply a purpose: they just ensure that code is compiled. The option > CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE becomes a run-time only thing, and so disappears from > the config. I think you just need "pdc_ide=0,force" and "pdc_ide=0,noforce". No need to complicate things. Remember that ataraid is only software RAID driver and pdc202xx_new is a chipset driver. jbod/raid should be managed by ataraid driver not ide or pdc202xx_new. And seriously, I don't care unless somebody ports ataraid to 2.5. [ Hint, hint! ;-) ] > Should I think about coding this? No, think about porting ataraid and pdcraid to 2.5 first. Regards, -- Bartlomiej > Regards, > > Ruth > > -- > Engineer, Author and Webweaver