SPI-4 rev. 9 table 85 incorrect

Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
Mon Feb 4 15:04:07 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
*
When I look at SPI-4 rev. 9:

Table 85 is the port control page short format. I see that bytes 2 & 3 are
defined as protocol identifier byte then reserved byte, respectively. I
believe the original proposal that was approved had these bytes in the
order reserved byte then protocol identifier field, respectively. Table 85
has swapped them for no apparent reason.

Table 86 is the port control page long format. In this table bytes 4 & 5
are equivalent to bytes 2 & 3 in table 85. These have the bytes in the
order reserved byte then protocol identifier byte, respectively.

I strongly believe Table 85 and Table 86 should line up with each other.
They should both use the order reserved byte then protocol identifier byte
or vice versa, but not one of each. Since one table must change to make the
tables agree, I propose changing table 85. Then the standard will agree
with Seagate's implementation. Do any other implementators have an opinion
on this? Please speak up!

*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list