Re: Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-14) and eSATA Port Multiplier (PMP) Not working

Hello,

Grant Grundler wrote:

quoted

[59719.989422] ata7: irq_stat 0x01100010, PHY RDY changed
[59719.989477] ata7: SError: { 10B8B }
[59722.781043] ata7: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0xe frozen
[59722.781112] ata7: irq_stat 0x00b40090, PHY RDY changed
[59791.300259] ata7.15: failed to write PMP_FEAT_EN (Emask=0x40)
[59791.300324] ata7: failed to recover PMP after 5 tries, giving up
[59791.300323] ata7: exception Emask 0x3 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen t4
[59791.300483] ata7: irq_stat 0x00060002, device error via D2H FIS

The "6 ports" is the clue I was looking for.

[    7.080266] ata7.15: Port Multiplier 1.1, 0x1095:0x3726 r23, 6
ports, feat 0x1/0x9
[    7.080531] ata7.00: hard resetting link
[    7.430307] ata7.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 320)
[    7.430311] ata7.01: hard resetting link
[    7.780305] ata7.01: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[    7.780309] ata7.02: hard resetting link
[    8.130305] ata7.02: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[    8.130310] ata7.03: hard resetting link
[    8.480305] ata7.03: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[    8.480310] ata7.04: hard resetting link
[    8.830317] ata7.04: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 320)
[    8.830321] ata7.05: hard resetting link
[    9.180232] ata7.05: failed to read SCR 1 (Emask=0x1)
[    9.180233] ata7.05: failed to read SCR 0 (Emask=0x40)

I don't believe port ata7.05 exists. AFAIK,  sil3736 only has 5 ports (0 to 4).
One of the quirks isn't applying or needs to be added to the kernel.
I don't recall what the psuedo port is for but Tejun or "Sans Digital
TRM4-B" vendor might know.

I think this comment in libata-pmp.c might be relevant:
     /* port 5 is for SEMB device and it doesn't like SRST */

But it looks like port 5 isn't responding at all. You might add a hack to change
"6" to "5" inside the "sil3726 quirks" code chunk.

Ah... right, it's the SEMB port which is causing the problem.  I left
it there just in case someone would extend on it and make it useful,
which never really happened and given the general flakiness of this
first generation PMPs, I think we would be better off simply disabling
these SEMB and configuration devices altogether.  Any objections?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun