On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, G�rard Roudier wrote:
>
> g >For my part, if I had a device that fails INQUIRY I would try to get
> g >reimbursed and if not possible I would break it into pieces and throw it
> g >far away. Software is hard to maintain. Any additional code or complexity
> g >adds possible bugs for a long time.
>
> There are millions of these devices out there, and every Linux Newbie
> who accidentally has one will want it to "work" under Linux as it does
> on Windows. If it doesn't, he will post "My XYZ device doesn't work"
> mails to the community and will angrily turn away from Linux if he's
> simply told his device is broken.
I was speaking for myself and didn't suggest to apply this to anybody
else. I like SCSI too much for running crap on it.
> I agree that tweaking something in the SCSI layer will introduce problems
> and bugs.
>
> There are already quite a few flags for "dumb" devices
> in the usb-storage code, it doesn't hurt to add yet another one and give
> the DATAFAB flash reader a special treatment for INQUIRYs.
The problem is that it is the INQUIRY that tells the kind of device you
face. There is no way in SCSI to sniff differently.
> Just for curiosity about SCSI-4: If a SCSI-4 device answers an INQUIRY
> (even with only 36 bytes), won't it identify itself as a SCSI-4 device,
> thereby showing the driver that it should request more INQUIRY data?
I already replied about this point.
> (Actually, it seems that Windows does 36byte INQUIRYs all the time.
> To work with Windows, a SCSI-4 device must operate that way).
If we just want free O/Ses to work as well or not better that Windows,
then there is no interest in developing them in my opinion.
> Of course we're just waiting for broken SCSI-4 devices :-)
There are already some. :-)
G�rard.
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
