On 05/07/2014 03:30 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 05/07/2014 03:15 PM, Peter Jones wrote: >> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:49:59PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote: >>> On 05/07/2014 02:21 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:12:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 09:47 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:00:20AM -0400, vikas.chaudh...@qlogic.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> From: Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudh...@qlogic.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Broadcom iscsi offload firmware uses a non standard ibft sign of "BIFT". >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? If it uses the standard iBFT format why does it use >>>>>> a non-standard signature? >>>>> >>>>> This is useful as an academic exercise (and perhaps even a reminder to >>>>> broadcom not to do it again) but I don't think we can make it a show >>>>> stopper. The boards have shipped with the non-standard signature, so we >>>>> have to work with them. >>>> >>>> I agree as the train has left, but this got me thinking about these >>>> questions that I hope Qlogic folks could answer: >>>> >>>> - Mention what else is different - perhaps there are other entries that >>>> are a bit different? Or maybe the are some non-standard ones added on? >>>> >>>> - How has this been tested? As in had all the fields been tested (so CHAP >>>> on/off, extra ports, etc). >>>> >>> >>> This supports the same stuff as was added in the original commit for >>> that string: >>> >>> 140363500ddadad0c09cb512cc0c96a4d3efa053 >>> >>> It just was not carried over in the acpi specific table in commit >>> 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886. >> >> Okay, but that patch leaves the scanning for it pre-ACPI intact. > > Before 935a9fee51c945b8942be2d7b4bae069167b4886, didn't we check for > BIFT in the ACPI table case? > > Before that patch, we used to do: > drivers/firmware/iscsi_ibft_find.c:find_ibft_region() > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ibft_signs) && !ibft_addr; i++) > acpi_table_parse(ibft_signs[i].sign, acpi_find_ibft); > > and BIFT was in that ibft_signs array. > > I was just saying I thought since we added support for BIFT, we had been > checking for it in the ACPI case.
I think I am in the wrong. When I added that support I thought BIFT was supposed to be for both the ACPI and the RAM case, so I had coded it like above. I am not seeing that in the old mails though, so you might be right and they just are now adding support for ACPI. Will just wait for qlogic/broadcom. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
