Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:04:09 +0200 From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@cuivre.fr.eu.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CDB6/10 negotiation Message-ID: <20020821230409.C66733@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208211327510.57170-100000@root.org>; from nate@root.org on Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:37:50PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208211327510.57170-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le 2002-08-21, Nate Lawson écrivait : > Consensus is suggesting the best approach is to put USB transport checks > under CAM_NEW_TRAN_CODE in cam_xpt.c and then use them to set > device-specific behavior. I think we should keep a clean separation between transport and protocol. Available command sets should not be tied to the protocol they are used on. For example the fact that an ATAPI CD-ROM drive is accessed through the ATAPI transport and the fact that it implements the MMC-2 command set should be recorded separately. > removed. The quirks that remain will truly be quirks where a device > reports capabilities it doesn't really support. Some devices can also require quirks for maximum I/O operation size (specifically, ZIP drives need a quirk in scsi_da to be able to use FFS). Cf. the scsi_da.c part in http://www.cuivre.fr.eu.org/~thomas/atapicam/patches/atapicam-20020409.diff (which needs to be adapted for -CURRENT.) Thomas. -- Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020821230409.C66733>