When will >=PDC20269 be supported? - Linux

This is a discussion on When will >=PDC20269 be supported? - Linux ; I've been trying to get a Promise Ultra133 TX2 (20269 chip) to work on Debian or Redhat until I noticed, despite upgrading the kernel to 2.4.18, there is no driver for this. E.g., from 'make menuconfig': "PDC202{46|62|65|67|68} support" exists. No ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: When will >=PDC20269 be supported?

  1. When will >=PDC20269 be supported?

    I've been trying to get a Promise Ultra133 TX2 (20269 chip) to work on
    Debian or Redhat until I noticed, despite upgrading the kernel to 2.4.18,
    there is no driver for this. E.g., from 'make menuconfig':
    "PDC202{46|62|65|67|68} support" exists. No 20269. Later kernels on ix86
    have this. Anyone know when will it become available for Alpha Linux.
    Also, is it the same driver as ix86 uses? Just wondering....

  2. Re: When will >=PDC20269 be supported?

    Erick writes:

    > I've been trying to get a Promise Ultra133 TX2 (20269 chip) to work on
    > Debian or Redhat until I noticed, despite upgrading the kernel to 2.4.18,


    Try 2.4.23. 2.4.18 is very old.

    > there is no driver for this. E.g., from 'make menuconfig':
    > "PDC202{46|62|65|67|68} support" exists. No 20269. Later kernels on ix86
    > have this. Anyone know when will it become available for Alpha Linux.
    > Also, is it the same driver as ix86 uses? Just wondering....


    It's the same driver for all architectures.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    mru@kth.se

  3. Re: When will >=PDC20269 be supported?

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:30:02 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:

    > Erick writes:
    >
    >> I've been trying to get a Promise Ultra133 TX2 (20269 chip) to work on
    >> Debian or Redhat until I noticed, despite upgrading the kernel to
    >> 2.4.18,

    >
    > Try 2.4.23. 2.4.18 is very old.


    I downloaded 2.4.23 from kernel.org (mirror) and my 200GB drive is
    detected as such on the (old) integrated CY82C693 interface. This was my
    ultimate goal. (I compiled in 20269 support too, and though I haven't
    tested it, someone confirmed it works with 2.4.23.) Evidently LBA48 did
    not appear until >2.4.18. Go figure.

    I would like to thank Mans and (from my post a long time ago) Mathieu
    Chouquet-Stringer for offering a correct interpretation. (Note that there
    were others in the thread who were not.)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3DN%26tab%3Dwg


+ Reply to Thread