> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:45:37AM -0700, Timothy Thelin wrote: > > > > I was curious about the reasoning behind this decision and > how to fix an > > issue that came up because of it. > > The reasoning goes something like this: There are lots of > devices which > report 0, but need the SCSI-II 10-byte commands to work. > > > I have some time to help in solving the above. But what do > people think the > > solution should be? > > > > Here are some ideas floating in my head: > > 1) Promote the scsi0 device to scsi3 (instead of scsi2) > since it most likely > > follows scsi3 forms of commands that it happens to support > > That's not going to fly. Lots of devices report 0 and follow > 2, not 3.
hmm then I guesss the information I got is off. Thanks for the clarification. > SCSI 3 triggers new and exciting behavior from SCSI core. > > > 2) Leave the scsi0 device as scsi0, and make sure the scsi > stack is aware of > > scsi0 devices (i.e. don't stick LUN info into cdb[ 1 ] ) > > That will break all the devices which report 0 but need > 10-bit commands ala > SCSI-II. > Yeah I was wondering how much breakage would occur. I guess that kills that idea. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
