On Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:29 AM, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > That's why I need the local_attached flag as an internal > > helper - it's not actually exposed to userland so the implementation > > 1) LSI does have SMP pass through. > 2) You absolutely do not need to represent all phys on the domain, > which is, as I said, a completely _crazy_ idea. Look, even > SDI doesn't > want you to do that. What SDI wants you to do is issue SMP out. > LSI does have SMP pass through in FW so use that. > 3) All you care about is SDI, and SDI has a _spec_. Your job is > twofold: > - implement drivers/scsi/sdi.c so we can all use it, > - implement the implementation/hw dependent way to > access SDI functionality for Fusion as described above > where I mention that this would be implementation dependent > (dispatching to). > Thanks Luben - My concern is converting our SDI/CSMI ioctls into what is acceptable in mainstream kernel. Agreed with Luben, all the expander data gathering, and configuration can be done in user space, which is what is being done by the HP application folks which are currently using our internal CSMI enabled drivers. I added expander support a couple rev's back since none of the non-direct attached sas/sata devices were not scanned and reported to the block layer above. This was a problem when our sas driver was converted to work with sas_transport. Best Regards, Eric Moore - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
