On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem > > > is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay. > > > The only first step can be printing a really big warning. After this > > > has been in for a while (at lest half a year) we can make it a non-default > > > option or turn if off completely in case the warning never triggered in > > > practice. > > > > > > The only resonable thing for 2.6.21 is to put in David's patch, possible > > > with an even more drastic warning when the rom is invalid and there's > > > no prom-fallback available. > > > > > > Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have > > > similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in > > > Sun-branded versions. Personally I think that's an utterly bad decision > > > from Sun's side, but we'll have to live with this. > > > > Fine. I'll rework an alternate patch for the 2.6.22 timeframe... > > We need to fix things now for 2.6.21 and the 2.6.x -stable branches > because users have unusable systems currently. Yes, and I'm fine with the original patch you provided which reverts the change and adds the firmware-upcalls to retrieve the wwpn/wwnn. > If it's just a time issue I can work on and push the patch, especially > since I have the means to test things here. I'll start with the final 2.6.21 -- add modify to add the *flashing* light warning and some additional bits based on other archs I can test with embedded ISPs. Thanks again for the SPARC tips. Regards, Andrew Vasquez - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
