# After Upgrade to Kernel 2.6.18-r2 SATA Problem

## beliboy

Hi,

i have upgraded from Kernel 2.6.17-r8 to kernel 2.6.18-r2. Im using an AMD64 on an Asus A8V Deluxe Mainboard (kt800pro chipset). After the upgrade, i have to following lines in my kernel messages after boot:

 *Quote:*   

> 
> 
> ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0xD007
> 
> ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0xC407
> ...

 

I cant test wether this really affects the functionality of SATA, becoz i dont have a SATA HD. But i searched my logfiles, and recognized, that this "Problem" appeared since my upgrade to the new kernel (the new kernel was created with a simple "make oldconfig").

Im not sure how to handle it, but i wanted to ask if otheres here have the same messages in their kernel log. And if its a bug, where to post it?

Christian

----------

## graphicsMan

I have the same message.  I have no idea if it is causing problems or not.

----------

## Winamp

I have the same problem  :Sad: 

My M/B - Asus M2NPV-VM, it has 4 SATA2 controllers sata_nv and I can't use any of them due to "abnormal status" of all of SATA ports  :Sad: 

----------

## Kijutsu

 *beliboy wrote:*   

> Hi,
> 
> i have upgraded from Kernel 2.6.17-r8 to kernel 2.6.18-r2. Im using an AMD64 on an Asus A8V Deluxe Mainboard (kt800pro chipset). After the upgrade, i have to following lines in my kernel messages after boot:
> 
>  *Quote:*   
> ...

 

Just talked to the folks over at #Gentoo-kernel.

Apparently this is a known issue, there was a functioning patch for 2.6.17, and when added to 2.6.18 it kernel panics for those without PATA using the same driver for SATA.  According to dsd there *should* be a working patch for 2.6.19-r3.  So be patient and stick with 2.6.17.  It'll be out soon.   :Very Happy: 

Here's a link to the bug report ---> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148059

----------

## Pizentios

I am having the same problem, but with a fresh install and trying to use the hardened sources (this box is going to be a redundant email server). I even tried upgrading to 2.6.19-r5, with no luck. I am currently moving back to 2.6.17-r1 to see if it will work. 

here's my hardware specs:

MotherBoard: Asus M2NPV-VM

RAM: 1GB

HD: 320GB Western Digital SATA

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 4200+

i'll post back once i have tried the 2.6.17 flavor of the hardened sources.

----------

## Pajarico

 *Kijutsu wrote:*   

> 
> 
> Just talked to the folks over at #Gentoo-kernel.
> 
> Apparently this is a known issue, there was a functioning patch for 2.6.17, and when added to 2.6.18 it kernel panics for those without PATA using the same driver for SATA.  According to dsd there *should* be a working patch for 2.6.19-r3.  So be patient and stick with 2.6.17.  It'll be out soon.  
> ...

 

Do you mean that if I need VIA sata support I have to compile VIA pata support too? I tried this but no luck. Also tried with the AICH driver but no luck. I'm receiving the "abnormal status" and a kernel panic because the kernel can't use SATA, thus it cannot access the root partition later and panics. Using 2.6.20-r7.

----------

## wynn

What VIA SATA chipset have you got? lspci output would be fine.

----------

## Pajarico

Here you have.

```
00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8385 [K8T800 AGP] Host Bridge (rev 01)

00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8237 PCI bridge [K8T800/K8T890 South]

00:0b.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 10)

00:0f.0 RAID bus controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VIA VT6420 SATA RAID Controller (rev 80)

00:0f.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)

00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 81)

00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 81)

00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 81)

00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 81)

00:10.4 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 86)

00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8237 ISA bridge [KT600/K8T800/K8T890 South]

00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233/A/8235/8237 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 60)

00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] HyperTransport Technology Configuration

00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Address Map

00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] DRAM Controller

00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Miscellaneous Control

01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV34 [GeForce FX 5200] (rev a1)

```

----------

## wynn

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

> Here you have.
> 
> ```
> 00:0f.0 RAID bus controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VIA VT6420 SATA RAID Controller (rev 80)
> 
> ...

 The driver for the VT6420 is sata_via and that for the VT82C586A is via82cxxx in "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" or pata_via in "Serial ATA (prod) and Parallel ATA (experimental) drivers" (sata_via is in this section too).

AFAIK it is only necessary to enable IDE in the kernel when there is only one disk controller and it does does both SATA and PATA.

There are three "abnormal status" reports from the forum for VT6420 (Googled for 'VT6420 "abnormal status" site:forums.gentoo.org') and only this one seems relevant:

[solved] PATA error messages - please help (Jun 07, 2006) reports the problem went away after upgrading the kernel to 2.6.19.

Could it be something in the BIOS that needs to be changed? I've seen posts saying that RAID in the BIOS should be set to xxx for SATA to work.

----------

## Pajarico

Thnaks for your help.

 *Quote:*   

> The driver for the VT6420 is sata_via and that for the VT82C586A is via82cxxx in "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" or pata_via in "Serial ATA (prod) and Parallel ATA (experimental) drivers" (sata_via is in this section too). 

 

I have sata_via and pata_via compiled in-kernel (both in "Serial ATA (prod) and Parallel ATA (experimental) drivers" as you pointed out). In "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" I have via82cxxx compiled in-kernel, too. Could this lead to conflicts?

 *Quote:*   

> AFAIK it is only necessary to enable IDE in the kernel when there is only one disk controller and it does does both SATA and PATA.

 

Sorry, I don't understand. I'm ok with my current configuration or not?

 *Quote:*   

> 
> 
> There are three "abnormal status" reports from the forum for VT6420 (Googled for 'VT6420 "abnormal status" site:forums.gentoo.org') and only this one seems relevant:
> 
> [solved] PATA error messages - please help (Jun 07, 2006) reports the problem went away after upgrading the kernel to 2.6.19. 

 

I don't think is relevant, as 2.6.17-r8 works perfectly, but 2.6.20-r7 has this issue (same kernel conf).

 *Quote:*   

> Could it be something in the BIOS that needs to be changed? I've seen posts saying that RAID in the BIOS should be set to xxx for SATA to work.

 

Like what? I haven't changed anything in the BIOS, what could have gone wrong? Can you point me to those posts? I'm not using RAID.

----------

## wynn

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

>  *Quote:*   The driver for the VT6420 is sata_via and that for the VT82C586A is via82cxxx in "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" or pata_via in "Serial ATA (prod) and Parallel ATA (experimental) drivers" (sata_via is in this section too).  I have sata_via and pata_via compiled in-kernel (both in "Serial ATA (prod) and Parallel ATA (experimental) drivers" as you pointed out). In "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" I have via82cxxx compiled in-kernel, too. Could this lead to conflicts?

 Yes, I think it could. You could try disabling via82cxxx (just renaming the module will do) and seeing if that works OK: your IDE drives will become /dev/sdX for disks and /dev/srN (sr0, sr1 &c.) with pata_via.

If this doesn't help then you can rename the via82cxxx back again and change the name of pata_via instead and see how things go.

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

>  *Quote:*   AFAIK it is only necessary to enable IDE in the kernel when there is only one disk controller and it does does both SATA and PATA. 
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. I'm ok with my current configuration or not?

 Sorry for not being clear: yes, your current configuration should be OK.

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

>  *Quote:*   There are three "abnormal status" reports from the forum for VT6420 (Googled for 'VT6420 "abnormal status" site:forums.gentoo.org') and only this one seems relevant:
> 
> [solved] PATA error messages - please help (Jun 07, 2006) reports the problem went away after upgrading the kernel to 2.6.19.  I don't think is relevant, as 2.6.17-r8 works perfectly, but 2.6.20-r7 has this issue (same kernel conf).

 Yes, not entirely relevant but it was the only one reporting trouble because of abnormal status errors.

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

>  *Quote:*   Could it be something in the BIOS that needs to be changed? I've seen posts saying that RAID in the BIOS should be set to xxx for SATA to work. 
> 
> Like what? I haven't changed anything in the BIOS, what could have gone wrong? Can you point me to those posts? I'm not using RAID.

 As you have had things working before (which I didn't know) then this comment probably doesn't apply.

As it works in 2.6.17-r8 it may be a regression in the later kernels, I can only suggest trying 2.6.21 or mm-sources when it comes out for the 2.6.21 kernel.

----------

## Pajarico

Following your advice I tried the following combinations:

- via82cxxx + sata_via + pata_via

- sata_via + pata_via

- sata_via + via82cxxx

I have yet to try every option alone. Also, when I'm talking about disabling via82cxxx I uncheck the whole "Generic PCI bus-master DMA support" under "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support". Does matter? Should I try with via82cxxx disabled but "Generic PCI..." enabled instead?

----------

## wynn

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

> Following your advice I tried the following combinations:
> 
> - via82cxxx + sata_via + pata_via
> 
> - sata_via + pata_via
> ...

 I thought it would be better to simply rename the module to stop it being loaded.

I don't know what effect unchecking things under "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" would have.

----------

## Pajarico

I don't have anything as a module. My root partition is in a SATA drive so I can't make modules for them. AFAIK hidding a module would have the same effect as not compiling that feature at all. I just checked both .config's and both sections are identical.

About the "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" bit: I was talking about just disabling via82cxxx or the whole "Generic PCI bus-master DMA support" submenu. I don't know if that may affect, but provided that those sections are equal in both .conf's I don't see what else could be wrong.

Regards and thanks for your help.

----------

## wynn

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

> I don't have anything as a module. My root partition is in a SATA drive so I can't make modules for them. AFAIK hidding a module would have the same effect as not compiling that feature at all. I just checked both .config's and both sections are identical.

 I hadn't realized that, then, as you did, you have to reconfigure the kernel.

 *Pajarico wrote:*   

> About the "ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support" bit: I was talking about just disabling via82cxxx or the whole "Generic PCI bus-master DMA support" submenu. I don't know if that may affect, but provided that those sections are equal in both .conf's I don't see what else could be wrong.

 My original idea was just to make the via82cxxx driver unavailable so the kernel couldn't load it. Just disabling via82cxxx should be enough, I think.

I'm sorry, but if that doesn't solve your problem, then I have no further ideas to offer.

----------

## Pajarico

Ok, thanks. I will search in kernel.org for changes related to via_sata etcetera.

----------

## wynn

You could also file a bug report against gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r7.

----------

## Pajarico

If I don't find anything useful, I will.

----------

## Pajarico

BTW, how can I save the output of the boot process? I'm asking because the "abnormal status" message it's said to be a non-show stopper in many threads, and there are other messages on my boot screen, like "error mask 0xXX" and also the driver starts to try diffrent speeds before panic.

----------

## wynn

You can get the output of the boot process sent to another machine on the wired, Ethernet, network using netconsole: How to enable logging of the init-process?.

This doesn't log the init process (contrary to the thread's title), it only works up to the point where init starts, but it does include the mounting of the root filesystem (and kernel panic, if any).

----------

## Pajarico

Unfortunately I don't have a second computer.

----------

## Pajarico

Lost of updates:

-I tried with kernel 2.6.21 and the "error" persists.

-I noticed that after "abnormal status" there were two lines:

 *Quote:*   

> ata1.00:qc timeout (cmd 0xef)
> 
> ata1.00:failed to set xfermode (err_mask=0x4)

 

So i searched for that error and turned out that "qc timeout" is a error produced by IRQ conflicts, while "abnormal status" seems just a -probably unrelated- warning.

-Even if I found weird that IRQ problems appear suddenly and doubt there are any actually, the suggestion for passing "irqpoll" to kernel boot command worked. The only annoyance is that I still get the "abnormal status" error (thus I think is just an unrelated warning).

-Even thought is not messing anything (aparently at least) I would like to get rid of that warning message. Also want to know what implications over performance/reability, etc does "irqpoll" have (I tried man bootparam but there is nothing there).

EDIT I left ACPI support off and that's why there were IRQ conflicts. No everything is ok.

----------

## fred0

Same problem with 2.6.20-r6 kernel and CONFIG_SATA_VIA=y and CONFIG_PATA_VIA=y

irqpoll solved it.

abnormal status warning is still present.

With 2.6.18 kernel and old CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA=y the same message was present but i never pay attention of it because system works fine.

----------

## Pajarico

Yes, it seems that "abnormal status" is just a warning with no importance...

----------

