From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Cc: Graham Knap <graham.knap@rogers.com>, Horms <horms@debian.org>,
338089@bugs.debian.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug#338089: New aic7xxx driver fails spectacularly on 2940UW
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:51:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1131918669.3759.3.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43779709.5070404@redhat.com>
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 14:42 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> The device is on a non-LVD bus. Certain devices were created back when
> the spec still stated that using PPR negotiation messages on a non-LVD
> bus was a no-no. As the echo buffer was an addition to support DV, and
> originally DV wasn't intended to be used on non-LVD busses, it might
> stand to reason that this device simply is going tits up because we are
> attempting to use the echo buffer while in SE mode. Checking that
> PPR/DT is valid (not just between controller and device, but also given
> bus mode) and only using echo buffer DV when all LVD conditions are met
> would likely solve the problem (assuming that the problem is what you
> are referring to).
I think so (pending confirmation of the patch working). The current DV
code assumes that if the device claims DT support in the INQUIRY data
*and* it returns a valid descriptor to the READ_BUFFER descriptors
command then enhanced DV should be attempted.
What I'm contemplating doing (which is what you also suggest) is
tightening up the check so if the standard DV read tests produce a
negotiation that doesn't set DT then we won't attempt enhanced DV
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-13 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20051108024523.35622.qmail@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
2005-11-08 3:31 ` Bug#338089: New aic7xxx driver fails spectacularly on 2940UW Horms
2005-11-08 14:10 ` James Bottomley
2005-11-09 1:47 ` Graham Knap
2005-11-13 4:16 ` James Bottomley
2005-11-13 16:47 ` Graham Knap
2005-11-13 17:41 ` Doug Ledford
2005-11-13 17:46 ` James Bottomley
2005-11-15 0:45 ` Graham Knap
2005-11-16 2:37 ` Horms
2005-11-13 18:03 ` Graham Knap
2005-11-13 18:21 ` James Bottomley
2005-11-13 19:42 ` Doug Ledford
2005-11-13 21:51 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2005-11-14 10:15 emmanuel.fuste
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-21 2:21 Graham Knap
2005-11-28 21:41 ` James Bottomley
2005-11-28 22:26 ` Doug Ledford
2005-12-05 1:49 ` Graham Knap
2005-12-12 17:53 ` Florian Ernst
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1131918669.3759.3.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=338089@bugs.debian.org \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=graham.knap@rogers.com \
--cc=horms@debian.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox