From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: "do ata" scsi command? Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:50:47 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3EC53307.5070908@rogers.com> References: <20030515230223.GA516@gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ([66.185.86.72]:8049 "EHLO fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264547AbTEPSiG (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 14:38:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20030515230223.GA516@gtf.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > In terms of a userspace interface for my ata-over-scsi gadget, I would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The main point. > prefer to use /dev/sg instead of inventing a totally new interface. > That, in turn, implies a need for a "do ata taskfile" scsi command, > which is sorta like ATAPI in reverse: we are wrapping a raw ata > taskfile inside a scsi cdb. > > My question is, does an existing standard or spec exist for such an idea? > > If not, I'll just roll my own. I read the whole thread. It seems like you want what the 3ware LLDD is doing. The format and specs are closed, but the implementation is open: ioctl and a char device ioctl. What you lose is the block/scsi synchronizaion, but if you want to support _closed_ vendor extensions, that's what you get. Unless what you want to support has a command mapping already in SCSI? Did you check SBC-2, SMC-2, SCC-2, SES-2? Wouldn't you find any CDB's there which would fit in? My guess is not. Did you also check the mode pages, etc? -- Luben