On 9/14/23 19:20, Damien Le Moal wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
index 92ae4b4f30ac..7aa70af1fc07 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
@@ -1828,6 +1828,9 @@ static unsigned int ata_scsiop_inq_std(struct ata_scsi_args *args, u8 *rbuf)
hdr[2] = 0x7; /* claim SPC-5 version compatibility */
}
+ if (args->dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_CDL)
+ hdr[2] = 0xd; /* claim SPC-6 version compatibility */
How about using the symbolic name SCSI_SPC_6 - 1 instead of the literal
constant 0xd?
- sdev->scsi_level = inq_result[2] & 0x07;
+ sdev->scsi_level = inq_result[2] & 0x0f;
if (sdev->scsi_level >= 2 ||
(sdev->scsi_level == 1 && (inq_result[3] & 0x0f) == 1))
sdev->scsi_level++;
Can support for inq_result[3] & 0x0f == 1 be dropped? From an SPC-2
draft from 2001: "A RESPONSE DATA FORMAT field value of two indicates
that the data shall be in the format specified in this standard.
Response data format values less than two are obsolete. Response data
format values greater than two are reserved."
@@ -157,6 +157,9 @@ enum scsi_disposition {
#define SCSI_3 4 /* SPC */
#define SCSI_SPC_2 5
#define SCSI_SPC_3 6
+#define SCSI_SPC_4 7
+#define SCSI_SPC_5 8
+#define SCSI_SPC_6 14
Please consider changing the SCSI_SPC_* constants such that these match
the SPC standard. Having numerical values that do not match the standard
is confusing.
Thanks,
Bart.
