Re: getting dma66 support in kernel
Hey that got it to work for me!! I have had problems following other how-to's.
Well, the HD speed went from 3 MB to 22 MB.
This is still a long way from 66. Is this normal? (I here 66 is almost
unattainable)
I have a motherboard and a hd that support ata 66 so I'm not sure what the
differences are compared to having a seperate controller.
Thanks
Collin
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:40:36 +0200, Philipp Schulte said:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 12:02:33AM -0400, Dave Bresson wrote:
>
> > so i used to be running the 2.2.17-ide kernel which came with potato, but
> > have since took it upon myself to go with a homegrown kernel, one which i
> > have configured and compiled myself. I downloaded the source to 2.2.16
> > and patched it to the latest 2.2.17pre19. I configured, and compiled it
> > using make-kpkg and installed it. However, to my dismay, when i compiled
> > it i saw no real option for the dma66 support which i need (and yes, i did
> > select to show the optional selections in make menuconfig) and so my newly
> > compiled kernel does nothing for my dma66 controller on my motherboard.
>
> There is an option called "Use DMA by default if available" in the
> Section "General Setup" close to the chipset stuff.
>
> But there may be many reasons why UDMA-66 is not turned on:
> 1. cables
> Do you use proper 66-cables, and did you make sure they are not too
> long?
> 2. some other device on the same controller interferes with the HD
> 3. HD and controller are not 100% compatible
>
> I would recommend to do the following:
> Try to turn on UDMA by using the programm "hdparm"
>
> hdparm -d1 /dev/hd?
>
> If you can turn in on this way you can set the mode by using these
> options:
> -X66 for UDMA-33 (!)
> -X68 for UDMA-66
>
> If it is possible to switch to UDMA-66 this way but the HD won't do it
> by itself you can put this line in /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh
>
> hdparm -d1 -X68 /dev/hd?
>
> HTH
> Phil
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
Reply to: