| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nomann
n00b
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:34 am Post subject: why wont "hda=none ..." work? |
 |
|
Hi, my 2.4.20-gentoo-r1 runs on a promise ata-100 secondary ide-interface. This means that it has to boot off /dev/hde and that /dev/hda and - hdb are not there.
I'd like to skip hda, hdb probing and timeout, and "/usr/src/linux/Documentation/ide.txt" clearly states that I can add some boot parameters to do that:
| Quote: | "hdx=none" : drive is NOT present, ignore cmos and do not probe
|
for x=a, b, ...
In my lilo.conf, I add:
| Code: | append="hda=none hdb=none"
|
And as you can see, it is indeed appended:
| Code: | # cat /proc/cmdline
BOOT_IMAGE=Gentoo.pp ro root=2107 hda=none hdb=none
|
But nevertheless, whenever I boot, there they are:
| Code: | hda: IRQ probe failed (0xfffffdf8)
spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7.
hda: no response (status = 0x0a), resetting drive
hda: no response (status = 0xa1)
|
Resulting in tedious timeouts, and then the same for hdb, untill it finally boots off hde. Now how on earth do I persuade the kernel from probing hda and hdb? I tried:
hda=none hdb=none
hda=noprobe ndh=noprobe
hda=none hdb=none ide0=noprobe
- but none seems to make a difference. Any help appreciated.
- Nomann |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1408
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If there is nothing on them why not try disabling the controller in the BIOS? Just get rid of the hardware so that the kernel doesn't even look at them. Just my quick idea. Of course maybe you want them to be there should you want to use it in the future, but I don't see why you can't go back in and turn it on then. Still maybe you have your reasons.
Regards,
BonezTheGoon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomann
n00b
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2003 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh yeah, hadn't really thought about that. I'll use it as a last resort, but I'd still like to know why the append= ... doesn't work. I mean, it should work according to he docs, shouldn't it? This sort of makes me stubborn, forcing me to work and work on the problem until I solve it. Or at least for a couple of minutes until I give up and go to sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
