On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 04:02:26PM -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote: > --- On Sun, 12/5/10, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- On Wed, 11/24/10, Luben Tuikov > > <ltuikov@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > CBI/BBB isn't supposed to be, nor is designed to > > support > > > SAM-modern devices. So while REQUEST LUN /may/ work on > > some > > > devices which implement it in their firmware, it is > > NOT a > > > requirement for those devices as they are not required > > to > > > adhere to any SAM version. Those transport protocols > > define > > > a class-specific request to get the maximum LUN, and > > another > > > to reset the target port (instead of I_T Reset or LU > > Reset). > > > They also do not support SCSI Status completion of > > the > > > command, nor Autosense. They also do not provide TMFs. > > They > > > provide none of the SCSI transport protocol services > > in > > > support of the Execute Command procedure call. The > > SCSI > > > layer shouldn't be trying to guess their "SCSI > > version", and > > > or treat them as real SCSI devices sending REPORT > > LUNs, etc. > > > commands. > > > > > > Newer, modern transport protocols over USB, are part > > of > > > SAM, and it is devices who connect via those protocols > > that > > > are being disadvantaged, due to the adoption > > (assumption) of > > > CBI/BBB well into the SCSI layer. > > > > > > To this effect, the transport protocol can tell upper > > > layers if the device is true SCSI (new usb transports > > or > > > other) or hybrid (usb-storage). In the former case, > > the > > > device is a SCSI device, in the latter, only basic > > commands > > > should be attempted. > > > > > > This isn't to say that firmware for those devices > > wouldn't > > > be buggy. Of course it will, and most will probably > > port > > > their legacy FW over to the new SPTL, but the > > protocol > > > requirements are there by design (i.e. there is no > > longer > > > Get Max Lun class-specific request, the application > > client > > > has to send REPORT LUNS, and FW has to answer it) and > > we > > > have to accommodate that. > > > > > > It is in this spirit that this patch doesn't change > > wire > > > behavior, but simply parses data returned by a > > command > > > already supported by older protocols. > > > > Did anyone pick up this patch? > > It's been over 6 weeks now that this patch's been in these mailing lists. > Will anyone pick up this patch, or should I stop posting it every > week? Please let me know--it's been posted here 6 times in the last 6 > weeks. James, this is all you. Any thoughts? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
