Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Would it be a good idea to abstract most of this in
> say something like
>
> struct satl_device_struct {
> -- data... ;
>
> /* The registering entity calls this for SATL to translate
> to an ATA task(s) and execute. Filled in by the SATL Layer. */
> int (*execute_scsi_task)(struct satl_device_struct *, struct scsi_cmnd *);
>
> /* SATL layer calls this to send an ata_task to the device.
> Filled in by the registering entity. */
> int (*execute_ata_task)(struct satl_device_struct *, struct ata_task *);
>
> -- recovery methods common to SATA-over-anything; filled in by registering
> \ entity
> };
>
> (ata task to be properly constructed: FIS, sg lists, etc.)
>
> Then libata-scsi would only have to export two (2) functions:
>
> int satl_register_device(struct satl_device_struct *);
> void satl_unregister_device(struct satl_device_struct *);
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(satl_register_device);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(satl_unregister_device);
Where would you be calling satl_register_device in your SAS class?
It looks like this would force libata to be the one to attach the ULD,
which would also force it to create a separate scsi_host for each
device, which is something I wanted to avoid. I think you really need a
libata API that the LLDD can call from its queuecommand function
to translate and send a command, which then calls back into the LLDD
to send the FIS to the hardware. This allows for all SAS/SATA devices
under the same HBA to show up under the same scsi_host.
Brian
--
Brian King
eServer Storage I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
: 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
