We got another report that CT1000BX500SSD1 does not work with LPM.
If you look in libata-core.c, we have six different Crucial devices that are marked with ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM. This model would have been the seventh. (This quirk is used on Crucial models starting with both CT* and Crucial_CT*)
It is obvious that this vendor does not have a great history of supporting LPM properly, therefore, add the ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM quirk for all Crucial BX SSD1 models.
Fixes: 7627a0edef54 ("ata: ahci: Drop low power policy board type") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Tkd-Alex alex.tkd.alex@gmail.com Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218832 Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel cassel@kernel.org --- drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index e1bf8a19b3c8..efb5195da60c 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -4137,8 +4137,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = { { "PIONEER BD-RW BDR-205", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
/* Crucial devices with broken LPM support */ - { "CT500BX100SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM }, - { "CT240BX500SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM }, + { "CT*0BX*00SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
/* 512GB MX100 with MU01 firmware has both queued TRIM and LPM issues */ { "Crucial_CT512MX100*", "MU01", ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
On 2024/06/24 22:27, Niklas Cassel wrote:
We got another report that CT1000BX500SSD1 does not work with LPM.
If you look in libata-core.c, we have six different Crucial devices that are marked with ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM. This model would have been the seventh. (This quirk is used on Crucial models starting with both CT* and Crucial_CT*)
It is obvious that this vendor does not have a great history of supporting LPM properly, therefore, add the ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM quirk for all Crucial BX SSD1 models.
Fixes: 7627a0edef54 ("ata: ahci: Drop low power policy board type") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Tkd-Alex alex.tkd.alex@gmail.com
We need a real full name here, not a user name... So if Alex is not willing to send his full name, please remove this.
Other than that, looks good. That was strike 3 for this series of SSDs, so I agree that taking the big hammer and disabling LPM for all of them is the right thing to do. If the device vendor wants to help with this, we can refine this later.
Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal dlemoal@kernel.org
Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218832 Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel cassel@kernel.org
drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index e1bf8a19b3c8..efb5195da60c 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -4137,8 +4137,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = { { "PIONEER BD-RW BDR-205", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM }, /* Crucial devices with broken LPM support */
- { "CT500BX100SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
- { "CT240BX500SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
- { "CT*0BX*00SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
/* 512GB MX100 with MU01 firmware has both queued TRIM and LPM issues */ { "Crucial_CT512MX100*", "MU01", ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 06:47:32AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2024/06/24 22:27, Niklas Cassel wrote:
We got another report that CT1000BX500SSD1 does not work with LPM.
If you look in libata-core.c, we have six different Crucial devices that are marked with ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM. This model would have been the seventh. (This quirk is used on Crucial models starting with both CT* and Crucial_CT*)
It is obvious that this vendor does not have a great history of supporting LPM properly, therefore, add the ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM quirk for all Crucial BX SSD1 models.
Fixes: 7627a0edef54 ("ata: ahci: Drop low power policy board type") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Tkd-Alex alex.tkd.alex@gmail.com
We need a real full name here, not a user name... So if Alex is not willing to send his full name, please remove this.
I disagree.
The Signed-off-by tag needs a real name, but if you take a dig through the git log, you will see that the Reported-by tag is not always a real name.
E.g. the benevolent dictator for life used a non-real name for Reported-by here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i...
Anyway, now when we have a real name, I will send a V2.
Kind regards, Niklas
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Damien Le Moal -
Niklas Cassel