Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Wiki for discussing P35/IHC9(R)/SATA issues set up

Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:37:24AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>   
>> yes btw due to god knows what reason the patch renumbered ad8 to ad6
>>     
>
> That can be discussed in the future.  ATA device numbering (that is to
> say, the X of an "adX" device) has always been a little odd in my
> experiences.  Turning on or off a ATA interface (PATA or SATA) seems to
> adjust the numbering, regardless of ATA_STATIC_ID or not.  It's likely
> that I do not understand what the kernel option does.
>
>   
>>> 1) Have you verified that the SATA150-limiting jumper on your Seagate
>>>    drive has been removed?  SATA300 drives from Seagate come from the
>>>    factory with that jumper connected, limiting the drive to SATA150.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I will check but:
>>
>> 1. I was unaware of this "feature"
>> 2. I didn't see any jumpers when I installed it
>>     
>
> The jumper is very tiny, usually gray, and on the back of the drive next
> to the SATA interface port.  It's documented both on the drive itself,
> and in the product manual for the Barracuda 7200.10 -- see Section 3.2:
>
> http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371h.pdf
>
> The default (SATA150) is chosen because of known issues with SATA300 on
> older nForce chipsets.  Seagate chose to limit the drives to SATA150 via
> a jumper, so that they would work on all machines, regardless of buggy
> or incompatible chipsets.
>   

See reply to Xi Lin but odd it was right where the manual said it was
but when I built the machine I remember not seeing it and/or any mention
of it in the manual (I was using the online manual so might be slightly
diff then the shipped one)

>   
>>> 2) Do you happen to be using a PATA-to-SATA adapter on the DVD drive?
>>>   
>>>       
>> It is native SATA (300)
>>     
>>> 3) If No to #2, are you sure that the ICH9 does SATA300 with ATAPI
>>>    devices?  Does the mainboard BIOS even support it for ATAPI?
>>>       
>> Mobo has ATAPI I am not sure about the IHC issue though... will look it
>> up and get back to you.
>>     
>
> My motherboard also has SATA ATAPI support -- but my DVD drives are
> SATA150.  I have never seen a SATA300 ATAPI drive.  Now, that said -- I
> *have* seen Fujitsu hard disks which claimed to be SATA300 capable but
> weren't.  It turned out to be false advertising; the SATA chip they used
> on their drives did not support SATA300, yet their product manual and
> ads said it did.
>
> This may be the case with your DVD drive as well.  I would not put it
> past a manufacturer to put incorrect information in their product specs.
>   

OEM so no freaking idea

> Also, you do realise that having a SATA150 drive on your SATA bus does
> not mean that the entire bus runs at 150MB/sec, correct?  It's not like
> SCSI.  So there should be no performance hit having a single SATA150
> drive on SATA controller also filled with SATA300 devices.
>   

My mobo uses seperate controllers for each SATA slot (I know you can
chain them but I am using one per controler):

Note ata2 is PATA all the rest are SATA

ATA channel 2:
    Master:  ad4 <Maxtor 6Y200P0/YAR41BW0> ATA/ATAPI revision 7
    Slave:   ad5 <WDC WD2500JB-22REA0/20.00K20> ATA/ATAPI revision 7
ATA channel 3:
    Master:  ad6 <ST3500630AS/3.AAE> Serial ATA II
    Slave:       no device present
ATA channel 4:
    Master: acd0 <TSSTcorpCD/DVDW SH-S183L/SB01> Serial ATA v1.0
    Slave:       no device present
ATA channel 5:
    Master:      no device present
    Slave:       no device present
ATA channel 6:
    Master:      no device present
    Slave:       no device present

> In the future, take proper time to thoroughly read about the hardware
> you purchase, or at a bare minimum, read the labels manufacturers put on
> their products.  :-)
>   

There was no label and as I said above I don't remember seeing any thing
in the manual.

> However: your PATA ports becoming unusable/disabled when you enable SATA
> in the BIOS could be either a BIOS bug (or "feature") or a FreeBSD bug.
> I would not put it past Gigabyte to have a BIOS bug (they are very
> well-known for having such, but are also pretty good about fixing
> such problems).  Have you tried a BIOS upgrade on your P35 since you
> got it, or looked at the BIOS changelog?
>   

It appears to be a FreeBSD issue because:

1. After Xi Lin's patch they are seen
2. The boot manager and cmos boot order see and can boot from them

> I do not have an ICH9 board to help confirm or deny -- I can purchase
> one if needed, and/or send it to Xin Li free of cost.
>   

>From what other people are saying I think it needs to be the p35/ihc9(r)
combo specifically.

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman
Developer, not business, friendly
http://www.flosoft-systems.com