Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:12:13 GMT From: stevebr@primenet.com (Steve Brueggeman) To: aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adaptec 2842 VLB, aic7xxx and zip-drive Message-ID: <3518fd87.148499@smtp.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <35183C0F.DF297C92@ping.be> References: <199803222357.p17030@h2.maus.de> <35174037.4A804DBC@dialnet.net> <35183C0F.DF297C92@ping.be>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
5.0.9 patch is still no-go for me either. Had time to do a little more experimenting, (very little). It's appears that it's only when I set the BIOS for my tape to WIDE that the boot fails. If I set my Sync for 40MB (Tape negotiates to 5Mhz), but no WIDE, it still boots, but have noticed a difference between aic7xxx-4.1.1 and aic7xxx-5.0.x. The offset value reported at boot time for my tape was 15 with ver 4.1.1, but is 8 for ver 5.0.8. I do not know what the Adaptec handels, and I still have not gotten the SCSI trace to see what everybody's asking for here. Just wondering if the offset byte of the period/offset pair returned by the tape is getting dropped off, or if it's an indication that I have a naughty tape, and it's returning an offset of 15, even though it was asked to do 8. Also, driver 4.1.1 states that the Tape is "Refusing WIDE negotiation; using 8 bit transfers". I take this to mean that the tape is responding with reject, as you stated. Ah, the rub, one reject MSG for whole DISC/PERD/OFST/WIDTH negotiation sequence. (?Right?) I should get a SCSI bus trace. SCSI does have it's bad side. Then again, maybe not. Then again it could mean nothing. I have not tried driver versions 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 (yet?). I should probably add that I have a pretty loaded SCSI bus, for operating at Ultra-1 speeds (6 Ultra-Wide drives, AND 1 narrow tape, on about 2.5 feet of cable, 3" between devices, using 2049UW to convert to Narrow bus for Tape). I appear to be able to operate at Ultra-1 speeds on all of my drives OK though, and tape appears to operate well, so I have not considered this as a problem. Just one of those random considerations that float through when things aren't working. Plenty willing to do experimentation at your command. Thanks for looking into this!!! Steve Brueggeman. >Doug Ledford wrote: > >> testing. So, I've attached a test patch to this email. If it works for >> people, this will become the new 5.0.9 driver. The patch applies against an >> already 5.0.8 kernel. If this works, then I'll give a more complete >> description of what the problem was since 5.0.8 technically should have been >> more reliable in regards to the REQINIT handler than 5.0.7, but I think the >> changes I made uncovered a second bug in the REQINIT system that Justin >> might be interested in. > >I tested your patch. Well, it doesn't work but there were two new messages at >the very top of the screen : > >(scsi0:0:4:0) SCSISIGI 0x0 SEQADDR 0x1, SSTAT0 0x7, SSTAT1 0x0 >(scsi0:0:4:0) invalid SCB ID 29 is active, SCB flags=0x404 > >the rest is similar to the output of the 5.0.8 driver > >Staying ready to test an other patch ... > >Michel > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3518fd87.148499>