From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pete Zaitcev Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:35:02 +0000 Subject: Re: socal Message-Id: <20031231233502.GA2051@devserv.devel.redhat.com> List-Id: References: <200312311429.26841.awirtz@novapointe.com> In-Reply-To: <200312311429.26841.awirtz@novapointe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:19:03PM -0800, Aaron Wirtz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 December 2003 15:07, C.Newport wrote: > > > > Have you tried checking the firmware Fcode ?. > > http://www.splack.org/fibrechan.html has the procedure for the soc > > cards, the socal stuff is very similar. > > Given that the Solaris driver (and ucode) work with it under Solaris 9, I > don't think the fcode version is currently an issue. One thing I had > considered was that if I have to use an older ucode version, I may have to > roll back the fcode to match. This just makes no sense. FCode carries its own ucode, which has nothing to do with the one a driver carries. For one thing, FCode always carries a debugging ucode, which tops at about 1000 IOPS. A driver carries a normal microcode, which reaches 5500 IOPS with small blocks, 17000 IOPS with null ops (for IP-over-SCSI, for instance). They are different and do not have to match, even their ABI may be slightly different. -- Pete