Wording issue with SPI-4 rev. 8

Richard Moore richard.moore at qlogic.com
Fri Jan 4 13:07:00 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Richard Moore" <richard.moore at qlogic.com>
*
OK, with Rob's suggestions the paragraph becomes:

"When an initiator port and a target port have negotiated with each
other to enable QAS, either of the two ports may participate in QAS
arbitrations when attempting to connect to the other port. When an
initiator port and target port have negotiated with each other to
disable QAS, each port shall not participate in QAS arbitrations 
when attempting to connect to the other port. When an initiator port 
and a target port have negotiated with each other to enable both QAS
and information units, that target port may issue a QAS REQUEST message
to that initiator port to release the bus after a DT DATA phase. A
target
port shall not send QAS REQUEST messages to an initiator unless it has
negotiated with that initiator to enable both QAS and information
units."

I believe this finally captures all the intended meanings of this bit.
I hope I got it right. Does this sound like a change that we can
get into the next rev of SPI-4?

I won't be at the Parallel SCSI WG meeting so I hope this can be
resolved
on the reflector.

 -- Richard Moore
    QLogic Corp.


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott at compaq.com>
*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Moore [mailto:richard.moore at qlogic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:05 PM
> To: t10 at t10.org
> Subject: RE: Wording issue with SPI-4 rev. 8
> 
> 
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Richard Moore" <richard.moore at qlogic.com>
> *
> Rob,
> 
> I agree with your interpretation.
> 
> The SPI-4 wording could do a better job of forcing this 
> interpretation.
> The last paragraph in 4.12.4.6.4 is almost, but not quite, clear
> enough: "When QAS is enabled, the port may participate in QAS
> arbitrations when attempting to connect to a port that has enabled
> QAS." The problem I have with this sentence is that "QAS enabled"
> is neither a bus-wide state (as might be inferred from the unqualified
> "When QAS is enabled"), nor a port-specific state (as might be
> inferred from "a port that has enabled QAS"). It is, as you say,
> an I_T-specific bit. It would be better to replace the entire
> paragraph with:

I like your suggested paragraph with a few tweaks:

> "When an initiator port and a target port have negotiated with each
> other to enable QAS, either of the two ports may participate in QAS
> arbitrations when attempting to connect to the other port. When a
> target port has set QAS_REQ to zero in a PPR IN message to an 
> initiator port, 

Change the start of this sentence to:
  "When an initiator port and target port have negotiated with each
   other to disable QAS,"
to match the phrasing in the other sentences.

>                 both ports shall not participate in QAS arbitrations 
> when attempting to connect to the other port. When an initiator port 

Change "the other port" to "each other", or change "both ports" to
"each port".

> and a target port have negotiated with each other to enable QAS and

Slip a "both" between enable and QAS.

> information units, that target port may issue a QAS REQUEST message to
> that initiator port to release the bus after a DT DATA phase. A target
> port shall not send QAS REQUEST messages to an initiator unless it has
> negotiated with that initiator to enable both QAS and information
> units."
*
* 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