From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: [PATCH] iscsi_ibft: search for broadcom specific ibft sign Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:49:59 -0500 Message-ID: <536A8E67.7030805@cs.wisc.edu> References: <1399453220-21663-1-git-send-email-vikas.chaudhary@qlogic.com> <20140507134757.GC12826@phenom.dumpdata.com> <1399489950.2227.63.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140507192158.GA17806@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sabe.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.6.20]:36938 "EHLO sabe.cs.wisc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750880AbaEGTu1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2014 15:50:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140507192158.GA17806@phenom.dumpdata.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: James Bottomley , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "giridhar.malavali@qlogic.com" , "konrad@kernel.org" , "vikas.chaudhary@qlogic.com" , "pjones@redhat.com" , "iscsi-driver@qlogic.com" 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 >>>> >>>> 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.