Joerg Schilling wrote: > That is the reason for trying to use a generic name for a utility that > only works with a limited subset of SCSI devices?
The goal of the project is to allow this to be used by things other than SCSI. Quoting from the case material: "This fasttrack addresses that request and in the process extends fwflash(1M) to also provide a generic, pluggable interface for other devices for which a firmware update mechanism might be required in the future." The keywords here are "generic" and "other devices". Then later on in the material: "The existing InfiniBand functionality will be re-factored to work within the proposed plugin framework." So not only does the case provide a framework for use by things other than SCSI it actually mentions an non SCSI consumer. What is it about the above that isn't clear and makes you think that fwflash(1M) applies only to a subset of SCSI ? I should also point out that the case material also says that /usr/sbin/fwflash already exits and was approved and introduced by PSARC/2005/126. So if anything I believe this case is actually the one that addresses your concern that fwflash is a generic name and your issue would have been relevant to PSARC/2005/126. 2005/126 was originally proposed as ibflash(1M) because it was to be relevant only for InfiniBand, however the then PSARC committee asked the project to to prepare for having a generic interface for firmware flashing and rename it to fwflash(1M), *this* case (2008/151) is that future one that makes it generic. -- Darren J Moffat
