[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Drivers socal on E3500



Chris Newport wrote:

> The last I heard the soc and socal code is unmaintained and did not make
> the scsi changes from 2.2.x to 2.4.x.
> IOW, if you want to use soc or socal you need to use a 2.2.x kernel or
> fix the drivers.
> 
> The easy workaround is to fit a SCSI card and forget about soc or socal.
> You will need to tell the OBP to boot from the scsi interface.

Noted and aware of that but does anybody have soc working at all? I've got
2.2.20 on a SPARCserver here and even with the firmware patch (assuming I got it
right, and noting the quoting problems in Sebastien's posting) I get

FC: Sending REPORT_MAP/FLOGI/PLOGI packets
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: Putting 010f0100 into cmd
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: Putting 020f0100 into cmd
FC: Login timeout
FC: Sending REPORT_MAP/FLOGI/PLOGI packets
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: Putting 030f0100 into cmd
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: 0 IN 3 OUT 0 LAST 3
soc0: imask 000f0180 000f0180
FC: Cannot enque FLOGI/REPORT_MAP packet on soc0 port B
FC: Login timeout
FC: Sending REPORT_MAP/FLOGI/PLOGI packets
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: EIO 000f0180
FC: Cannot enque FLOGI/REPORT_MAP packet on soc0 port A
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: EIO 000f0180
FC: Cannot enque FLOGI/REPORT_MAP packet on soc0 port B
..
FC: Sending REPORT_MAP/FLOGI/PLOGI packets
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: EIO 000f0180
FC: Cannot enque FLOGI/REPORT_MAP packet on soc0 port A
soc0: Putting a FCP packet type 1 into hw queue 0
soc0: EIO 000f0180
FC: Cannot enque FLOGI/REPORT_MAP packet on soc0 port B
..
PLUTO: 0 channels online

This is on hardware that works OK with Solaris 8. I know it's retro, I'm just
trying to demonstrate that Sun kit's usable.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]



Reply to: