Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Bao C. Ha" <> | Subject | Ide.c and Flash drives | Date | Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:47:18 -0800 |
| |
Hi Mark,
In the kernel 2.4.17, ide.c makes an assumption that CompactFlash cards and their brethern don't have a slave unit. Unfortunately, I have two that can do master/slave and get caught since they are side by side: (1) CompactFlash on an IDE/ATA adapter (as master)and (2) Simple Tech Flash disk (as slave).
I patched the following to get it to work:
--- ide.c.orig Wed Jan 2 10:35:38 2002 +++ ide.c Wed Jan 2 10:39:44 2002 @@ -324,13 +324,14 @@ struct hd_driveid *id = drive->id;
if (drive->removable && id != NULL) { - if (id->config == 0x848a) return 1; /* CompactFlash */ + /* if (id->config == 0x848a) return 1; */ /* CompactFlash */ if (!strncmp(id->model, "KODAK ATA_FLASH", 15) /* Kodak */ || !strncmp(id->model, "Hitachi CV", 10) /* Hitachi */ || !strncmp(id->model, "SunDisk SDCFB", 13) /* SunDisk */ || !strncmp(id->model, "HAGIWARA HPC", 12) /* Hagiwara */ || !strncmp(id->model, "LEXAR ATA_FLASH", 15) /* Lexar */ - || !strncmp(id->model, "ATA_FLASH", 9)) /* Simple Tech */ + /* || !strncmp(id->model, "ATA_FLASH", 9)) */ /* Simple Tech */ + ) { return 1; /* yes, it is a flash memory card */ } Could the assumption be re-evaluated? Am I going to get into trouble doing this?
Regards. Bao
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |