On 09/05/14 6:50 pm, "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:50:20AM +0000, Vikas Chaudhary wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/05/14 2:27 am, "Mike Christie" <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >On 05/07/2014 03:30 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >I think I am in the wrong. When I added that support I thought BIFT was
>> >supposed to be for both the ACPI and the RAM case, so I had coded it
>> >like above. I am not seeing that in the old mails though, so you might
>> >be right and they just are now adding support for ACPI. Will just wait
>> >for qlogic/broadcom.
>>
>> Mike, In your original patch 140363500ddadad0c09cb512cc0c96a4d3efa053 we
>> are checking for BIFT, and BIFT was in ibft_signs[] array which is
>>defined
>> in iscsi_ibft_find.c.
>> Latter when patch 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886 get added,
>>this
>> patch defined new array of ibft_signs[] in iscsi_ibft.c which does not
>> have BIFT signature.
>> Patch 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886 added to fix finding IBFT
>> ACPI table on UEFI. We are just enhancing this patch.
>
>In a nutsheel this is a fix for a regression that has been there since 3.2
>and introduced by 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886 ("ibft: Fix
>finding
>IBFT ACPI table on UEFI").
>
>Vikas,
>Could you resend the patch and include these details in the commit
>messages:
>That this is a fix for said regression and what cards it impacts (or
>firmwares).
>
>Thank you.
>
>Since this is a regression I can send the patch to Linus right away - but
>I really would like to have that information in the git commit message
>so that Linus doesn't look funny at me.
I have posted updated patch here:-
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=139998320611652&w=2
Thanks,
Vikas.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
