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/