In message <20040518212818.GA8866@antioche.eu.org>, Manuel Bouyer writes:
>On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:58:54AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> a test 2.0 kernel with a delay/retry loop in the initialization; that
>> got a bit further than the stock kernel, but still no joy:
>> 
>> wdc2 at pcmcia1 function 0
>> atabus2 at wdc2 channel 0
>> wdc2:0: before reset, st0=0x80 (10), st1=0x0 (0)
>> wdc2:0:0: after reset, sc=0x1 sn=0x1 cl=0x0 ch=0x0
>> wdc2:0:1: after reset, sc=0x1 sn=0x1 cl=0x0 ch=0x0
>> wdc2:0: wdcwait_reset() end, st0=0x50 st1=0x0
>> wdc2:0: after reset, ret_value=0x2
>
>At this point it thinks there's only a slave device, no master.
>My guess is that the 0x1 is cleared from ret_value in __wdcwait_reset().
>

There is only one device on that controller; I have no idea why it 
thinks it's a slave instead of a master.  (I also didn't think that 
that was a problem.)  But from this line:

	wdc2:0: before reset, st0=0x80 (10), st1=0x0 (0)

it looks like the first drive queried -- I assume the master -- never 
cleared BSY.  I can increase the delay value and/or the loop counter, 
but I have a feeling that that won't help.  What I will try when I get 
home is to change the order of the two tests.  

But from the output from the -current kernel, I don't think your guess 
is correct.  I was seeing this:

wdc2:0 drive 0 wd_cyl_lo: got 0x80 != 0x02
wdc2:0 drive 0 wd_cyl_lo: got 0x80 != 0x01
wdc2:0 drive 0 wd_sector: got 0x80 != 0x01
wdc2:0 drive 0 wd_sector: got 0x80 != 0x02
wdc2:0 drive 0 wd_cyl_lo(2): got 0x80 != 0x01
wdc2:0 drive 1 wd_cyl_lo: got 0x80 != 0x02
wdc2:0 drive 1 wd_cyl_lo: got 0x80 != 0x01
wdc2:0 drive 1 wd_sector: got 0x80 != 0x01
wdc2:0 drive 1 wd_sector: got 0x80 != 0x02
wdc2:0 drive 1 wd_cyl_lo(2): got 0x80 != 0x01

which means that the code in wdcprobe1 would have reset 0x1.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb