James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 15:55 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > >>On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:49:55PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: >> >>>Can you just try it with a modern kernel and see if anything still >>>breaks? >> >>I just realized this plan has a problem... >> >>The reported SCSI level of a device is mostly garbage, but not always. >>I've seen 0, 1, 2, 3, and 0xff all reported. HOWEVER, the reported value >>seems independent of what devices have vendor-specific commands (and thus >>need the CDB[1] not messed with). >> >>It is an interesting experiment to remove the force-to-SCSI_2 part of the >>usb-storage code (on the general principal of "we shouldn't be messing with >>the data passed through the driver), but it doesn't solve the original >>question of needing a way to pass commands without CDB[1] getting altered. > > > Well, that might be a problem if it weren't for the fact that this > LUN_INHIBIT flag was removed in 2002. If it's taken three years to find > a device that has a problem with it, I don't really think it's a > particularly widespread problem. And since the device that now shows > the problem is setting the level to 0, it looks like we have a potential > solution that fits all known cases. > > Anyway, the goal should be to handle devices in a standards compliant > manner first and then worry about quirk tables when that doesn't > work ... we have an incredibly broad quirk infrastructure in SCSI for > this. > > James > ok, ive just ordered 2 cypress CY7C68300B samples and will replace the discont'd A type in my device. datasheet for A says nothing about ATACB and security. sheet for B does guarantee. cypress windows driver reports no security, too. so i will replace the chip to have a testing base. tom - : 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
