Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:59:57 -0800 From: Chuck Tuffli <chuck_tuffli@agilent.com> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIM as loadable module? Message-ID: <20021120195956.GB35733@cre85086tuf.rose.agilent.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211191100360.61105-100000@root.org> References: <20021118064805.GA7533@thegrail.rose.agilent.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211191100360.61105-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:06:04AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Chuck Tuffli wrote:
> > case XPT_PATH_INQ:
> > {
> > ...
> > cpi->bus_id = bus;
>
> Shouldn't this be:
> cpi->bus_id = cam_sim_bus(sim);
> (of course, I don't know what the type of "bus" is in this context)
Earlier in the function:
int bus = cam_sim_bus(sim);
> > cpi->initiator_id = cpi->max_target + 1;
>
> Does this accurately reflect the card's settings? Some SIMs I've seen do
> a device-specific call to read the card's id (in your case,
For this, I was mimicing what the isp and mpt were doing although I
wasn't 100% sure why there was a distinction. My guess was that by
setting the HBA's ID higher than max_target, the CAM wouldn't send
INQUIRY.
> fcPortGetInfo?). I guess your approach should be necessary in the FC case
> since your position in the chain can change when you get a LIP.
Wouldn't the driver want to insulate the CAM from this kind of event?
I was thinking that the CAM's view of TID should be independent from
FC's view of NPort_ID. The intent would be that the WWN of TID x
should be the same before and after a LIP, but the mapping of TID to
NPort_ID may change.
--
Chuck Tuffli <chuck_tuffli AT NO_SPAM agilent DOT com>
Agilent Technologies, Storage and Networking
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?20021120195956.GB35733>