From owner-freebsd-scsi Tue Jul 29 02:21:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA27353 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA27348 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id LAA09703; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:21:29 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA04712; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:13:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19970729111328.HZ47422@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:13:28 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: jaykuri@oneway.com (Jay Kuri) Subject: Re: help: wiring down scsi devices doesn't work References: <199707221118.HAA06466@hda.hda.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: ; from Jay Kuri on Jul 24, 1997 09:13:27 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Jay Kuri wrote: > Gotcha... I was under the impression that the scanner was reporting > itself as a processor (and this is what the docs for the driver said it > would do) but it was really reporting itself as a type 6 (scanner... > imagine that :) Btw., if you want to override the assignment of some particular device, invent a new entry in /sys/scsi/scsiconf.c. Normally, the first couple of fields in each record there is identical, meaning a device of a particular `type' gets assigned to the `type driver' that it is intended for. However, you can assign it to a different driver as well; see the SONY SMO drive for one example that comes to mind (it is so old that it only reports itself as being `direct access', while it is actually `optical'). > I thought that processor target and unknown target had some different > functionality... It appears that I am wrong in that. ISTR that processor targets support read and write syscalls, while uk(4) don't. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)