Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] scsi: scsi_devinfo: extend BLIST_NO_LUN_1F to MATSHITA and NEC PD-1 variants

[Phil Pemberton <philpem@philpem.me.uk>]

On 27/04/2026 12:56, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 4/26/26 21:09, Phil Pemberton wrote:
>> The Panasonic LF-1095/LF-1195 PD/CD combo drive was sold under three
>> OEM identities: COMPAQ "PD-1", MATSHITA "PD-1", and NEC "PD-1 ODX654P".
>> All three are the same drive mechanism with the same firmware family,
>> so they should share the BLIST_NO_LUN_1F quirk that was applied to the
>> COMPAQ variant: PDT 0x1f / PQ 0 INQUIRY responses on non-existent LUNs
>> are treated as "LUN not present" rather than as a phantom sdev.
>>
>> This patch is offered for completeness.  It has not been tested on the
>> MATSHITA or NEC variants -- the author only has access to the COMPAQ
>> unit -- but the drives are functionally identical and the flag is a
>> no-op on devices that do not exhibit the PDT 0x1f response.  Drop or
>> hold this patch if confirmation on real hardware is preferred before
>> extending the quirk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Phil Pemberton <philpem@philpem.me.uk>
>> ---
>>   drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c | 6 ++++--
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
>> index bfc2cbd43897..ab1ffa9433b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
>> @@ -201,7 +201,8 @@ static struct {
>>       {"LASOUND", "CDX7405", "3.10", BLIST_MAX5LUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>>       {"Marvell", "Console", NULL, BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES},
>>       {"Marvell", "91xx Config", "1.01", BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES},
>> -    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>> +    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN |
>> +                   BLIST_NO_LUN_1F},
>>       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC5", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | 
>> BLIST_INQUIRY_36},
>>       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC40", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | 
>> BLIST_INQUIRY_36},
>>       {"Medion", "Flash XL  MMC/SD", "2.6D", BLIST_FORCELUN},
>> @@ -212,7 +213,8 @@ static struct {
>>       {"nCipher", "Fastness Crypto", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN},
>>       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-4.8S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>>       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-5.16S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>> -    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>> +    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN |
>> +                      BLIST_NO_LUN_1F},
>>       {"NEC", "iStorage", NULL, BLIST_REPORTLUN2},
>>       {"NRC", "MBR-7", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>>       {"NRC", "MBR-7.4", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> 
> Any specific reason why this patch is not merged with the previous one?
> Otherwise:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

Only that these are optional to the feature work and untested as I don't 
have hardware. I believe these drives use the same PD-1 mechanism and 
firmware so should behave the same, but I can't prove it.

The intent was to allow the 1-6 set to be merged (as these are tested) 
without 7/7 (which is not) to minimise the risk of regressions.

Thanks,
-- 
Phil.
philpem@philpem.me.uk
https://www.philpem.me.uk/