On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 06:13:12PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > So perhaps it should be. If you look at the equivalent topology on > > SAS, our expanders have a bsg device node precisely so that we can do > > this. > > I agree, the PMP should get a device or at least some kind of > interface to address them, especially as the SATA topology can > get quite complicated too, for example it seems that PMPs can > be daisy chained in an infinite sequence like this > > / / / > --[PM]---[PM]---[PM]-- - - > \ \ \ Oh, no, that's not allowed. You can't address destinations that way. PMP is primarily a switch, not a router. > > Sure, as long as it speaks standard ses-2, there shouldn't be a > > protocol problem. The main problem is recognition: ses has to bind > > to an enclosure device. It can bind either to an explicit device > > (about all the enclosures I've seen so far) where the ses device has > > a separate address in the SCSI topology or an implicit device (where > > another SCSI device indicates it has an enclosure port embedded in > > it). As currently coded, our ses driver only does the former probably > > the best way is to expose the ses device via libata and we'll simply > > bind to it. > > so AHCI em_messages use standard ses-2 or did I misinterpret > this (for me cryptical) information? AFAIK, it just doesn't care. It could be ses-2 or whatever else. It just transmits the binary blob it receives via sysfs and vice-versa. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
