[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ata_piix sata support - patch for 2.4.27



On 10/6/05, dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:26 -0400, Larry Lindsey wrote:
> > I've produced a patch against the Debian 2.4.27 sources, which adds
> > ata_piix support (ICH6, ICH7).  A lot of Dell machines use this
> > chipset.  Its pretty klugey, but I hope its useful.
> >
> > http://www.math.gatech.edu/~lindsey/libata-piix-2.4.27.patch.tar.bz2
> > http://www.math.gatech.edu/~lindsey/libata-piix-2.4.27.patch.deb
> >
>
> Thanks Larry.
>
> Your best bet for getting your changes into the Debian kernel is get
> these patches accepted in the upstream 2.4 tree; we can then attempt to
> backport it to the 2.4.27 tree (assuming we're still maintaining one).
> I don't know how open they are for new features though.

Cool.  How would I go about doing that?  Or... by upstream do you mean
the actual kernel maintainers?

> Any reason you can't use a 2.6 kernel?

I work for a lab that produces some kernel-module-level software that
requires a kernel patched with adeos and rtai.  Taken all together,
these limit us to the 2.4.27 kernel.  The problem we had to overcome
is that many of our target audience use certain Dell desktops, which
boot from SATA drives on these particular Intel chipsets, but the
driver in the 2.4.27 kernel doesn't work for these.  It also seems
that the most recent supported 2.4 kernel in debian-testing is a
2.4.27, which is another reason to go with that version.

So this patch is pretty much targeted at people in a similar situation
-- where, for whatever reason, they might be stuck on a 2.4.27 kernel,
but also need to support a more-or-less universal configuration.  Its
actually based on a patch against 2.4.27 by Jeff Garzik, who seems to
maintain the SATA code in the vanilla kernel, and the 2.4.31 SATA
driver source, which is the first version on the 2.4 line, as far as I
can tell through experimentation, that actually works with the Dell
machines.  In any case, there aren't any new features here over the
existing vanilla code base.



Reply to: