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

Re: [Yaird-devel] Bug#345067: ide-geenric inclusion even if it doesn't exist.

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:03:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:24:51AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:51:52AM +0000, Horms wrote:
> > > Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Oh look, why are you still fighting about this?  It seems to me that the
> > > > real problem is that the via module doesn't declare a relation to
> > > > ide-generic in situations where it actually does need it.  Why not fix
> > > > the kernel, so that yaird doesn't have to bend over backwards?  Not that
> > > > I really care either way, but it does seem to me to be cleaner to fix
> > > > the underlying problem rather than adding increasingly nonsensical
> > > > special case code somewhere else to work around it.
> > > 
> > > Can someone cook up a patch for this and send it upstream and/or here?
> > 
> > I guess this means someone needs to investigate it with the hardware that is
> > broken in the first place. Nobody seemed interested in doing so, and i don't
> > have broken via-ide x86 hardware myself.
> > 
> > Now, can we please get the borken hack in yaird be backed out or at least
> > disabled on powerpc as my patch proposed ?
> As I subsequently mentioned on IRC, I have some Via hardware, though I'm
> not sure if its broken or not.  If someone wants me to run tests, please
> let me know.

What we need to know is why the x86 via driver apparently needs the
ide-generic module to be loaded after the via-ide one, while there doesn't
seem to be a difference on powerpc who doesn't even build ide-generic.

Could you try booting your via board with just viac8xx or whatever it is
named, and not including the ide-generic file (means patching
/usr/lib/yaird/perl/Hardware.pm, where it is hardcoded).

Also, i wondered about another issue, since the ide-generic inclusion is
needed for having dma-enabled, and we probably scarcely need that inside the
ramdisk, what if we just reverted the patch and let the loading of ide-generic
upto the post-ramdisk tools ? 

Anyway, i don't know why Erik is silent/MIA on this one, and Jonas clearly has
decided to ignore anything i could say, so it would be great if someone else
and neutral had a look at this issue and actually had a few words with him or

I still don't think it is sane to not apply the patch reversal on powerpc to
unbreak yaird on powerpc/pegasos board (and on other powerpc using a via-ide
pci card as root probably too), but hey, i have kind of given up on this one,
as initramfs-tools works fine :/


Sven Luther

Reply to: