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

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

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.