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

[Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>]

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@qlogic.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudhary@qlogic.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.