Mark Schaefer wrote: >Eike, > >I think I've resigned myself to the fact that it won't boot. I've done a >bit of digging by directly sending commands to the unit. I'm not sure why >I can't force scsi_scan to do a REPORT_LUN on it through the Black List, >but what I know is that it reports luns as 0x40...00 - 0x40...MAX_LUNS - >they are reported as flat addressing, according to the SCSI Architecture >Manual. > >Since TYPE_RAID implements a standard (albeit deprecated), it might >actually be worth trying to create a driver for it. The real question I >have is whether I could get at the drives simply by masking the LUN's like >the cpqfc driver does, or whether something like BLIST_SPARSE_LUNS would >do the trick, or maybe even a new blasklist entry like >BLIST_FLAT_LUN_ADDRESSING. > >Here's a quote from cpqfcTSworker.c: >// e.g., the Compaq RA4x00 f/w Rev 2.54 and above may report >// LUNs 4001, 4004, etc., because other LUNs are masked from >// this HBA (owned by someone else). We'll make those appear as >// LUN 0, 1... to Linux I've looked around a bit in the LUN code some month ago as I was trying to get this to a state where it was sort of working. This code is as horrible as the rest of this driver, so I didn't really got the point what of this strange stuff is really needed and what was just caused by code monkeys on drugs. I now got a card, but a 5121, so I can't test this stuff. And I don't have such an array :) >I'm not sure what the direction of Linux is at this point, but there are a >lot of RA4x00's out there for cheap and they (at least initially) seemed >like a good entry-level FC RAID system. Now the driver is buried and all the people with such hardware come out of their holes. Fascinating :)) I was thinking about a list related only to these things and/or writing a FAQ for this. What do the other people around think about this? MKP? >Also, I'm not sure how strange of >a beast the RA4x00 is. If it's a one-off, maybe I could create a specific >driver for it that acts as a LUN masker. If there are more, it may make >sense to make the changes necessary to deal with flat addressing. > >At this point, I'm convinced that it would be a minor change to at least >the scsi_scan code to deal with TYPE_RAID. I'm a bit more concerned about >how widespread a change like flat addressing would be. I'm not really familiar with the low level SCSI code. James? Christoph? Eike
Attachment:
pgpL9x9wjg7dx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
