Thanks, Alan. We may need that mod too. We are getting ready to extend our channels, but aren't quite there yet.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Unsupported Devices > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:22:47 -0700, Schuh, Richard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote= > : > > >We have some devices from a vendor that are not tape drives, > but which > >respond to Sense Id and Read Device Characteristics as > though they are > >3480-04s. This works fine for the older model of the device; > however, > >the newer versions respond very badly to any legitimate tape command > >that is not included in a list of 5 CCW Op codes that they need. > >Unfortunately, Rewind and Unload is not a supported command. > Because of > >this, CP gets a CE/DE/UC with Command Reject whenever one of these > >devices is detached from a user or a user logs off. This is > not a good > >thing because it boxes the device. > > > >I can include RDEVICE statements in SYSTEM CONFIG to perhaps > eliminate > >the RUN problem. My question is, what can I specify that > will work? I > >can specify TYPE TAPE. Another possibility is TYPE UNSUPPORTED with > >DEVCLASS TAPE. Will CP still issue the RUN command for these > devices if > >I include either of these potential circumventions? I would be > >surprised= > > >if it did not. Is there a generic type and class I can use > without fear > >of introducing other problems? It probably would not be much of a > >change= > > >to HCPDTD to bypass the RUN for an address range; however, > something is > >needed sooner rather than later. > > > >I have expressed an opinion to the vendor that if a device > is going to > >tell the system that it is a 3480-04, then it ought not reject CCWs > >that= > > >are legitimate for that type of device. It will probably be > faster for > >me to modify CP than for them to modify their devices. > > > >Regards, > >Richard Schuh > > I would go with TYPE UNSUPPORTED with DEVCLASS TAPE. I doubt > CP will iss= ue anything. (You or IBM will need to read the > code.) IBM support came up with a revised CCW t= able for us > for an UNSUPPORTED device (a channel extender) that didn't > like one of the CCWs.= We carry this as a user mod. > > Alan Ackerman > Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com >
