From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from nick.sneptech.io (nick.sneptech.io [178.62.38.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1571149C6F; Wed, 6 May 2026 01:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.38.78 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778029862; cv=none; b=SbuyvHfBs3K+D66ctqR5XuC3lzPHrTyGr3UIFOteArTq+UGZbWceRe0ooy12XopuN8Yg/CQRVTlx0ruIlCycJt+ObwiTzokbJH1FwnTki7AUT9zLF7Ba6Z2W/00/ZAXw//o5wx0XBbqYfuulJPOVyY9PkFqaz41sf7wuYL8sfFY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778029862; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RkLhcLrXVauydYrKsrABqVXoD9Sb2pNbxPAsYYGUFfg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=i898LzW9DjzydupzW/YPhEEU8w27jEtGZ4qZ/O2K6Okc+VziWO0zCWP0BsjpLlAQyq+R/KR5ZtTU8bjLBrksYM43d15RIBXs2KWLZ29MyGJr2I++IfF/+hug87sNelOdorbgeUISX+Ig9flwIhXJ4kkc4k9NN2i05hyoQXA520o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=philpem.me.uk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=philpem.me.uk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=philpem.me.uk header.i=@philpem.me.uk header.b=XVV73trR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.38.78 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=philpem.me.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=philpem.me.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=philpem.me.uk header.i=@philpem.me.uk header.b="XVV73trR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=philpem.me.uk; s=mail; t=1778028756; bh=RkLhcLrXVauydYrKsrABqVXoD9Sb2pNbxPAsYYGUFfg=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=XVV73trRzWdgCF3a6jOKHNi9YwD8nQCerYqJ68Qvi8ECP+7lQTiHM9oThJtF0X+LZ hey4+u8ax+HJjuPZOhF9gAawTgJaraxqOyqmFBLQ8Gu1bA3CH+GJJeMwghTYUwzIwD 8PbiQMAdRD/NEshJAtEGX556Ua8Qr7wA17vCXa9A= Received: from wolf.philpem.me.uk (81-187-163-148.ip4.reverse-dns.uk [81.187.163.148]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mailrelay_wolf@philpem.me.uk) by nick.sneptech.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A7EFBE516; Wed, 6 May 2026 00:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.32] (cheetah.homenet.philpem.me.uk [10.0.0.32]) by wolf.philpem.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB6585F938; Wed, 6 May 2026 01:52:35 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <566ea0c5-3d8b-4ce4-8d42-e97ecabe5f9d@philpem.me.uk> Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 01:52:35 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] scsi: scsi_devinfo: extend BLIST_NO_LUN_1F to MATSHITA and NEC PD-1 variants To: Hannes Reinecke , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Damien Le Moal , Niklas Cassel , "James E . J . Bottomley" , "Martin K . Petersen" References: <20260426190920.2051289-1-philpem@philpem.me.uk> <20260426190920.2051289-8-philpem@philpem.me.uk> Content-Language: en-GB From: Phil Pemberton In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 27/04/2026 12:56, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 4/26/26 21:09, Phil Pemberton wrote: >> The Panasonic LF-1095/LF-1195 PD/CD combo drive was sold under three >> OEM identities: COMPAQ "PD-1", MATSHITA "PD-1", and NEC "PD-1 ODX654P". >> All three are the same drive mechanism with the same firmware family, >> so they should share the BLIST_NO_LUN_1F quirk that was applied to the >> COMPAQ variant: PDT 0x1f / PQ 0 INQUIRY responses on non-existent LUNs >> are treated as "LUN not present" rather than as a phantom sdev. >> >> This patch is offered for completeness.  It has not been tested on the >> MATSHITA or NEC variants -- the author only has access to the COMPAQ >> unit -- but the drives are functionally identical and the flag is a >> no-op on devices that do not exhibit the PDT 0x1f response.  Drop or >> hold this patch if confirmation on real hardware is preferred before >> extending the quirk. >> >> Signed-off-by: Phil Pemberton >> --- >>   drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c | 6 ++++-- >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c >> index bfc2cbd43897..ab1ffa9433b7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c >> @@ -201,7 +201,8 @@ static struct { >>       {"LASOUND", "CDX7405", "3.10", BLIST_MAX5LUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >>       {"Marvell", "Console", NULL, BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES}, >>       {"Marvell", "91xx Config", "1.01", BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES}, >> -    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >> +    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN | >> +                   BLIST_NO_LUN_1F}, >>       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC5", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | >> BLIST_INQUIRY_36}, >>       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC40", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | >> BLIST_INQUIRY_36}, >>       {"Medion", "Flash XL  MMC/SD", "2.6D", BLIST_FORCELUN}, >> @@ -212,7 +213,8 @@ static struct { >>       {"nCipher", "Fastness Crypto", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN}, >>       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-4.8S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >>       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-5.16S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >> -    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >> +    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN | >> +                      BLIST_NO_LUN_1F}, >>       {"NEC", "iStorage", NULL, BLIST_REPORTLUN2}, >>       {"NRC", "MBR-7", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, >>       {"NRC", "MBR-7.4", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN}, > > Any specific reason why this patch is not merged with the previous one? > Otherwise: > > Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke Only that these are optional to the feature work and untested as I don't have hardware. I believe these drives use the same PD-1 mechanism and firmware so should behave the same, but I can't prove it. The intent was to allow the 1-6 set to be merged (as these are tested) without 7/7 (which is not) to minimise the risk of regressions. Thanks, -- Phil. philpem@philpem.me.uk https://www.philpem.me.uk/