From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas schorpp Subject: Re: [usb-storage] [Merging ATA passthru] on integrating SMART/ATA-Security in usb-storage driver Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:10 +0100 Message-ID: <436FB3EE.1090406@gmx.de> References: Reply-To: t.schorpp@gmx.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:25528 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964901AbVKGUHQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:07:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Patrick Mansfield , James Bottomley , Timothy Thelin , usb-storage@lists.one-eyed-alien.net, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux SCSI list Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, thomas schorpp wrote: > > >>>I don't think blacklisting is a good way to do this. In principle any USB >>>mass storage device -- any SCSI device, in fact -- might have a >>>vendor-specific pass-thru needing special handling. >> >>no. that would be not industry best practice and uneconomical sw effort. > > > Adding vendor-specific codes to SCSI devices isn't industry best practice? > I can't argue with that, but it is very common nevertheless. not for all the cheap noname consumer stuff around. maybe in your scsi-320 server world i cant afford. > > Is it an uneconomical software effort? Ridiculous -- it's not software at > all, it's part of the firmware. i thought were speaking of OS drivers here? > > >>remember this devices are mainly "designed for windows" and WHQL certification >>is expensive for every single driver. and ms has only one driver for all usb storage >>right now, all boxes and sticks i had here use it. > > > I think you have a very limited view of how devices are "designed". > Besides, I specifically said I was talking about _all_ SCSI devices, not > just USB ones. > yes, for the second sentence, this is made clear now. > >>> It doesn't have to be >>>correlated with the vendor, the product, the SCSI level, the transport, or >>>anything else. >> >>yes. the sheet for design recommended cypress chips state all ATACB and ATA-Security. >>i would be make no sense to implement different behaviuors in chips for the same purpose. > > > That's what Cypress does, sure. But who says that other vendors have to > copy Cypress? For the most part they don't. Neither does T10. they dont copy cypress, they want to reduce costs, processes and resulting "standards" should be compatible, therefore. > > As for whether it makes no sense -- you have your point of view. Business > people have a very different point of view; to them it might make > excellent sense, to help secure a competitive advantage. :D i'm no business man. i am a generalist and i just want to lock my external hdd. > > Alan Stern > > - tom schorpp