On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> Various people wrote:
> > >>Ignore FastTrak BIOS and configure controller for RAID
> > >>CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE
> > >> Forces the driver to use the ATA-RAID capabilities, overriding the
> > >> BIOS configuration of the controller. Do not enable if you are
> > >> using Promise's binary module. This option is compatible with the
> > >> ataraid driver.
> > >What about this:
> > Much better, but
> > >Ignore FastTrak BIOS
> > >CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE
> > > Forces the driver to use FastTrak controller even if it was disabled
> > > by BIOS for Promise software RAID driver.
> > This one might confuse people thinking we mean the ataraid driver, and
> > not the binary only driver.
>
> My personal experience of the FastTrak device is that you must always "force"
> it if you just want JBOD. [Note: I have never used a promise device as the
> 1st controller, because the Southbridge ide controller always comes in
> first]. Now, I have never tried using ataraid or the promise bin-only driver,
> so I guess there are occasions when not forcing is a good thing. I assume
> from other comments that no-force is the right option for the Promise
> binary-only driver?
Yes.
> I am much of the opinion that "CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE" should be a run-time
> option so that it can be set up correctly for the user's machine even when
> the kernel is a vendor one with pre-selected config choices. If this doesn't
> happen, in some cases (e.g. installing a new kernel) the user's disks just
> disappear and there isn't much you can do about it :-( See my comments at
> the end of the mail for more on this.
Agreed.
> > Maybe:
> > Forces the driver to use FastTrak controller even if it was disabled
> > by BIOS for Promise's binary only software RAID driver.
> >
> > > Say Y if you do not use Promise's software RAID or
> > > if you want to use ataraid driver.
> > >
> > > Say N if you want to use Promise's binary module.
>
> I don't like this one, as at least on first reading I completely misunderstood
> it -- it seemed as if you only had RAID choices, no non-RAID ones. I see now
> that Y gives you a (veiled) non-RAID choice. Is the following better?
There is "or" not "and", but I see your point.
> Don't reserve the FastTrak controller for the Promise proprietary RAID driver.
> Say Y if you:
> - want to use attached disks quite independently;
> - want to use attached disks in a Linux Software RAID (mdX) array;
> - want to use attached disks with the Linux 'ataraid' driver. You must
> also enable the option CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC.
Better: no "Say Y" description et all :-).
> Say N if you want to use Promise's proprietary, binary only, Software
> RAID driver.
Above with "saying N will cause ide driver to skip Promise controllers"
should be sufficent.
> I think a better configuration setup than this would be a multiple- choice
> arrangement that subsumes CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE, CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC
> and CONFIG_PDC202XX_NEW option into one question, like this:
>
> Configuration of the FastTrak IDE controller
> CONFIG_PDC202XX_MODE
> Please select the appropriate driver for this controller:
> [ ] Promise proprietary, binary only, Software RAID driver
> [ ] Linux GPL version of Promise Software RAID driver
> [ ] Standard IDE driver, for disks that can be used quite independently
>
No way! This will make it even uglier.
Command line parameter is a superior solution.
> However, this still has the problem of what happens if you have multiple
> controllers and wish to use them in 2 or more different configurations (e.g.
> 2 disks on 1st controller ataraid, 2 disks on another controller as JBOD).
>
> Therefore, IMO the best setup would be to provide options that enable
> possibilities (e.g enable you to use ataraid by compiling the code) but that
> the actual use of the disks is defined in a module or command-line switch
> (e.g. "pdc_ide2=ataraid,pdc_ide3=jbod"). In this case, we will keep the
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ATARAID_PDC and CONFIG_PDC202XX_NEW options but they do not
> imply a purpose: they just ensure that code is compiled. The option
> CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE becomes a run-time only thing, and so disappears from
> the config.
I think you just need "pdc_ide=0,force" and "pdc_ide=0,noforce".
No need to complicate things.
Remember that ataraid is only software RAID driver and pdc202xx_new
is a chipset driver.
jbod/raid should be managed by ataraid driver not ide or pdc202xx_new.
And seriously, I don't care unless somebody ports ataraid to 2.5.
[ Hint, hint! ;-) ]
> Should I think about coding this?
No, think about porting ataraid and pdcraid to 2.5 first.
Regards,
-- Bartlomiej> Regards, > > Ruth > > -- > Engineer, Author and Webweaver
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:45 EST