future of drivers/fc4/

future of drivers/fc4/

[Christoph Hellwig]

The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.

future of drivers/fc4/

[Christoph Hellwig]

The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[David S. Miller]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:03:53 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
> to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
> midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.

Feel free to remove it, interested parties can resurrect the source
really easily.

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[David S. Miller]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:03:53 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
> to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
> midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.

Feel free to remove it, interested parties can resurrect the source
really easily.

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[C.Newport]

On Sunday 20 June 2004 7:40 pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:03:53 +0200
>
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
> > to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
> > midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.
>
> Feel free to remove it, interested parties can resurrect the source
> really easily.

If it is that easy could someone tell me what needs doing please ?
I am NOT a kernel programmer but given a little handholding and
a list of what to do I can build and test it here.

I also have a spare set of hardware if someone in the UK with the
needed skills would like it. Sorry, but the disk array is a bit heavy to 
ship elsewhere. If someone already has the array I will mail a card
anywhere.

We need this if we are ever to get the Sun4D working again.
Keith now has a contact for the missing info to get Sun4D working
properly, but without the fc, soc and pluto it will be rather restricted in
usefulness.

 

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[C.Newport]

On Sunday 20 June 2004 7:40 pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:03:53 +0200
>
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
> > to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
> > midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.
>
> Feel free to remove it, interested parties can resurrect the source
> really easily.

If it is that easy could someone tell me what needs doing please ?
I am NOT a kernel programmer but given a little handholding and
a list of what to do I can build and test it here.

I also have a spare set of hardware if someone in the UK with the
needed skills would like it. Sorry, but the disk array is a bit heavy to 
ship elsewhere. If someone already has the array I will mail a card
anywhere.

We need this if we are ever to get the Sun4D working again.
Keith now has a contact for the missing info to get Sun4D working
properly, but without the fc, soc and pluto it will be rather restricted in
usefulness.

 

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[Matthias Schulz]

Hi,

I saw your posts on vger.kernel.org but it doesn't seem to find a lot of 
reaction there.

I do have a lot of hardware to test this (S1000E, SSA 100, E5000, 
A5000). A while back, I had the 2.2.20 kernel running with my SS1000E 
and the SSA 100 attached. Worked fine. But any version of Linux later 
than 2.2.20 didn't do it.

Could it be, that the mayjor changes from 2.2 -> 2.4 (SMP, scsi etc.) 
are the REAL reason for that ?

I don't think it has to do woth hardware issues other than having the 
right firmwar on either the soc-board (1.33) and the SSA (3.??).

Did you get any further ?

Did you have it running with 2.2.??

Sincerly,
Matthias Schulz

C.Newport schrieb:
> On Sunday 20 June 2004 7:40 pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:03:53 +0200
>>
>>Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>>>The SUN FCAL support has been non-working for ages and needs major work
>>>to keep up with scsi API changes.  Is anyone planning to ressurect it
>>>midterm?  If not I'd like to remove it from the tree.
>>
>>Feel free to remove it, interested parties can resurrect the source
>>really easily.
> 
> 
> If it is that easy could someone tell me what needs doing please ?
> I am NOT a kernel programmer but given a little handholding and
> a list of what to do I can build and test it here.
> 
> I also have a spare set of hardware if someone in the UK with the
> needed skills would like it. Sorry, but the disk array is a bit heavy to 
> ship elsewhere. If someone already has the array I will mail a card
> anywhere.
> 
> We need this if we are ever to get the Sun4D working again.
> Keith now has a contact for the missing info to get Sun4D working
> properly, but without the fc, soc and pluto it will be rather restricted in
> usefulness.
> 
>  
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:46:27PM +0200, Matthias Schulz wrote:
> I saw your posts on vger.kernel.org but it doesn't seem to find a lot of 
> reaction there.
> I do have a lot of hardware to test this (S1000E, SSA 100, E5000, 
> A5000). A while back, I had the 2.2.20 kernel running with my SS1000E 
> and the SSA 100 attached. Worked fine. But any version of Linux later 
> than 2.2.20 didn't do it.
> Could it be, that the mayjor changes from 2.2 -> 2.4 (SMP, scsi etc.) 
> are the REAL reason for that ?
> I don't think it has to do woth hardware issues other than having the 
> right firmwar on either the soc-board (1.33) and the SSA (3.??).
> Did you get any further ?
> Did you have it running with 2.2.??

I'm trying to arrange for a recovery from the changes between 2.2 and
2.4 as well as those between 2.4 and 2.6... this will not be trivial to
do. Testing and help coding would be appreciated.


-- wli

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[C.Newport]

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 4:46 pm, Matthias Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw your posts on vger.kernel.org but it doesn't seem to find a lot of
> reaction there.
>
> I do have a lot of hardware to test this (S1000E, SSA 100, E5000,
> A5000). A while back, I had the 2.2.20 kernel running with my SS1000E
> and the SSA 100 attached. Worked fine. But any version of Linux later
> than 2.2.20 didn't do it.
>
> Could it be, that the mayjor changes from 2.2 -> 2.4 (SMP, scsi etc.)
> are the REAL reason for that ?
>
> I don't think it has to do woth hardware issues other than having the
> right firmwar on either the soc-board (1.33) and the SSA (3.??).
>
> Did you get any further ?
>
> Did you have it running with 2.2.??

I have the soc/pluto combination working here with 2.2.20 on the SS1000E 
but I have not looked at this in a while. The problem is that there were major 
changes to the scsi subsystem in the 2.2 to 2.4 transition and noboby did
any work on the soc or socal stuff. The changes are rather major so 
someone with good kernel skills needs to spend some time updating this.

Does anyone know if the fcal based Ultrasparcs such as the SF1000 are
also affected ?.

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[David S. Miller]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:51:00 -0700
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to arrange for a recovery from the changes between 2.2 and
> 2.4 as well as those between 2.4 and 2.6... this will not be trivial to
> do. Testing and help coding would be appreciated.

FWIW, I think the bugs were introduced when I moved the fc4
drivers over to using sbus_{read,write}bwl() instead of
direct volatile pointer derefs.

Re: future of drivers/fc4/

[Aaron Wirtz]

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 08:51, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'm trying to arrange for a recovery from the changes between 2.2 and
> 2.4 as well as those between 2.4 and 2.6... this will not be trivial to
> do. Testing and help coding would be appreciated.

Let me know if I can help.  Depending on work schedule and other stalled plans 
for the machine, I may be able to help you test on an E3500.  I would very 
much like to see these drivers work.
-Aaron