Re: [PATCH] iscsi_ibft: search for broadcom specific ibft sign

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/07/2014 03:15 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:49:59PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 05/07/2014 02:21 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:12:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 09:47 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:00:20AM -0400, vikas.chaudhary@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>> From: Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudhary@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Broadcom iscsi offload firmware uses a non standard ibft sign of "BIFT".
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? If it uses the standard iBFT format why does it use
>>>>> a non-standard signature?
>>>>
>>>> This is useful as an academic exercise (and perhaps even a reminder to
>>>> broadcom not to do it again) but I don't think we can make it a show
>>>> stopper.  The boards have shipped with the non-standard signature, so we
>>>> have to work with them.
>>>
>>> I agree as the train has left, but this got me thinking about these
>>> questions that I hope Qlogic folks could answer:
>>>
>>>  - Mention what else is different - perhaps there are other entries that
>>>    are a bit different? Or maybe the are some non-standard ones added on?
>>>
>>>  - How has this been tested? As in had all the fields been tested (so CHAP
>>>    on/off, extra ports, etc).
>>>
>>
>> This supports the same stuff as was added in the original commit for
>> that string:
>>
>> 140363500ddadad0c09cb512cc0c96a4d3efa053
>>
>> It just was not carried over in the acpi specific table in commit
>> 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886.
> 
> Okay, but that patch leaves the scanning for it pre-ACPI intact. 

Before 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886, didn't we check for
BIFT in the ACPI table case?

Before that patch, we used to do:
drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft_find.c:find_ibft_region()

        for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ibft_signs) && !ibft_addr; i++)
                acpi_table_parse(ibft_signs[i].sign, acpi_find_ibft);

and BIFT was in that ibft_signs array.

I was just saying I thought since we added support for BIFT, we had been
checking for it in the ACPI case.


--
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux