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>