Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:23:58 -0600
From: Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org>
To: T10 Reflector <t10@t10.org>
Subject: Re: mask x07 or x03 defines Rsoc Cdb byte 2
X-Message-Number: 7510
Formatted message: HTML-formatted message

Pat,
My review of SPC-4 r08 indicates that your comment is
almost right.
CDB byte 2 does contain a 3-bit field in the low-order
bits and that makes your proposed change from 03h to 07h
correct ... as far as it goes.
However, SPC-4 r08 adds the command timeouts reporting
option to the REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES command.
This new feature defines bit 7 of byte 2 as the RCTD
(Return Command Timeouts Descriptor) bit. When this
change is added to the issue which you have reported
the cited byte needs to change from 03h to 87h.
Unless I hear objections, I will made this change
in SPC-4 r09.
All the best,
.Ralph
Pat LaVarre wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10@t10.org), posted by: * "Pat LaVarre" *
>
> Spc4r08.pdf at p.231 discusses "REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES".  It 
> has an example CDB usage map that labeled as "the" CDB usage map of 
> "REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES".
>
> A3h, 0Ch, 03h, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, 00h, 07h is the example.
>
> A3h, 0Ch, 07h, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, FFh, 00h, 07h is what I 
> expected at first glance, since the REPORTING OPTION codes go in the 
> three lsb's of byte 2 of the Cdb, and my mask 07h rather than the 
> Pdf's 03h in byte 2 would be a mask of three lsb's rather than two lsb's.
>
> Is 07h rather than 03h in byte 2 yes obviously what we meant to type, 
> or have I misunderstood, or is something interesting happening here?
>
> Curiously yours,
>
> * * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with * 'info t10' 
> (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo@t10.org