Re: Major qla2xxx regression on sparc64

Andrew Vasquez
2007-04-19T17:15:43Z

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:

> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
> > > is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
> > > The only first step can be printing a really big warning. After this
> > > has been in for a while (at lest half a year) we can make it a non-default
> > > option or turn if off completely in case the warning never triggered in
> > > practice.
> > >
> > > The only resonable thing for 2.6.21 is to put in David's patch, possible
> > > with an even more drastic warning when the rom is invalid and there's
> > > no prom-fallback available.
> > >
> > > Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have
> > > similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in
> > > Sun-branded versions. Personally I think that's an utterly bad decision
> > > from Sun's side, but we'll have to live with this.
> >
> > Fine. I'll rework an alternate patch for the 2.6.22 timeframe...
>
> We need to fix things now for 2.6.21 and the 2.6.x -stable branches
> because users have unusable systems currently.

Yes, and I'm fine with the original patch you provided which reverts
the change and adds the firmware-upcalls to retrieve the wwpn/wwnn.

> If it's just a time issue I can work on and push the patch, especially
> since I have the means to test things here.

I'll start with the final 2.6.21 -- add modify to add the *flashing*
light warning and some additional bits based on other archs I can test
with embedded ISPs. Thanks again for the SPARC tips.

Regards,
Andrew Vasquez