de facto obsolete sbc-2 ops - 8Bh

Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
Wed Feb 20 10:42:43 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
*

Actually we are trying to obsolete the entire idea of a SEEK command. The
Seek(6) and Seek(10) are not used except for test cases. There was an
attempt to obsolete these commands that was nearly passed. No one sees the
need to extend this abomination to the 16 byte CDB group.



                                                                                               
                    "Pat LaVarre"                                                              
                    <LAVARRE at iome        To:     <t10 at t10.org>                                 
                    ga.com>              cc:                                                   
                    Sent by:             Subject:     de facto obsolete sbc-2 ops - 8Bh        
                    owner-t10 at t10                                                              
                    .org                                                                       
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                    02/20/02                                                                   
                    10:25 AM                                                                   
                                                                                               
                                                                                               




* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
*
> > Can we obsolete x8B?
> > On the theory that for some people
> > this will be the Seek op for 64-bit Lba's?

> "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott at COMPAQ.com> 02/19/02 12:51PM
> ... opcodes are a rare commodity;
> we don't want to discard them
> just because the lower bits match
> some other opcode's lower bits
> (SEEK(6) at 0Bh and SEEK(10) at 2Bh).

Somebody please elaborate?

I missed the whole why not carry Seek forward beyond 2TiB @ 0.5KiB/block
discussion, back whenever it occurred?

I came to expect to see Seek(16) at x8B as follows:

1) I think I saw we Sbc folk have Read in 6, 10, 12, and 16 bytes forms at
x 08 28 A8 88.  I saw we have Write at x 0A 2A AA 8A.  I saw we have
WriteVerify at x 2E AE 8E.  I saw we have Verify at x 2F AF 8F.  In
contrast to all this, I saw as yet we have Seek only at x 0B 2B.

2) I think I saw the significant distinction between the required x 28 2A
and the optional x A8 AA goes commonly unused in a commodity PC.  With x A8
AA we raise the max block count above xFF:FF, aye.  But we don't raise the
max expressible Lba and we don't alter the deeply regrettable fact that
Wintel favours block counts of x00:80 and below.

3) The main point I saw in progressions like x 08 28 88 was to raise the
maxLba expressible from x1F:FF:FF (1GiB @ 0.5KiB/block) to xFF:FF:FF:FF
(2TiB) to xff:ff:ff:ff:FF:FF:FF:FF.

Thus I came to expect to see Seek(16) at x8B, for devices that store more
than 2TiB @ 0.5KiB/block,

If people aren't putting Seek(16) there, where are they putting it?  Out
among the ops whose Cdb length's are less determinate?  That's hard to
credit: those ops are hard to transport across platforms.


> 16-bit opcodes are a rare commodity;

Somebody help me out with terminology here?  I got lost in the "16-bit
opcodes" part.

Unless corrected I'll take this English to mean to say that the ops x00..FF
are a precious resource.  Most precious are the ops that are not
vendor-specific yet but still have long established Cdb lengths i.e.
x00..5F A0..BF.  Next most precious are the not vendor-specific ops of
newly specified Cdb length i.e. x7F..9F.

I thought the original Scsi had "8-bit" ops but x7F is an escape op that
gives us a fresh new "16-bit" op space aka the "service action" sub-op.


> opcodes are a rare commodity;

I count myself as a language lawyer.  I find specs, I buy a copy of the
official draft (I even have an official Scsi 1), I read the specs, I try to
understand the specs ... all sometime before/as I code an implementation.

I haven't really "read" the Sbc docs - but on my first glance, it seemed to
me that x8B was quietly left out.

I'm given to understand a lot of people in our business are less careful -
which makes me think x8B is going to be Seek(16) whether we like it here or
not.  If that's true, then we'd do better to admit that up front than to
try and patch up life later.


> opcodes are a rare commodity;

Maybe we should make x8B Vendor-Specific rather than Obsolete, so device
folk get at least one 16 byte Cdb they can use for whatever purpose?  I
think I see the July 2001 rev 4 Sbc-2 makes vendor-specific only Cdb's of
6, 10, and indeterminate byte length?


Pat LaVarre


> I count myself as a language lawyer

Courtesy <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/language-lawyer.html
> we know: ... 'A language lawyer is distinguished by the ability to show
you the five sentences scattered through a 200-plus-page manual that
together imply the answer to your question "if only you had thought to look
there" ...'

But the t10 texts I don't (yet?) know well.


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



*
* 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