From owner-freebsd-scsi Tue Dec 22 15:21:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10003 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:21:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09976 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:21:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id AAA06936 for scsi@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:21:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA27461; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:52 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from j) Message-ID: <19981223000050.28179@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:50 +0100 From: J Wunsch To: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0R && AHA1540A == no go Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch References: <19981222173104.28962@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199812222134.OAA14499@narnia.plutotech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199812222134.OAA14499@narnia.plutotech.com>; from Justin T. Gibbs on Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 02:34:44PM -0700 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 Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org As Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > I believe that the 1540A does not support residual calculating > CCB opcodes. I'm almost sure it doesn't. > So, you'd have to modify the driver to use these > opcodes on pre-historic devices. `these'? (Sorry, which ones?) > Unfortunately it is impossible > to get correct underrun information without these opcodes, so you'll > have to get creative in this case and you may expose portions of > the CAM code that become confused if the residual reported is incorrect. Hmm, what does that mean ``for the average user''? IOW: under normal circumstances, is it likely that residuals are reported at all? Or in case an adapter doesn't support them, can we just assume there's no residual (without big harm)? I have no good clues about what a residual actual means other than `something was left over from an old request' or something like that... It would be too bad if i had to throw away an otherwise working controller that does its job well (well enough for the environment it's running in, remember it's a scratch machine). I probably would stick with 2.2.x then, but that's a less optimal solution. -- 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. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message