Download microcode proposals

Ballard, Curtis C (HP Storage) curtis.ballard at hp.com
Tue Jun 24 15:26:14 PDT 2014


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1406244_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

For HP
On item (1) - HP has some products with the behavior specified in the email
below.	There isn't global agreement in HP on the subject, some products
terminate on changes to the MODE field value but I didn't address those in my
earlier email.
On item (2) - correct, HP did not address this issue.
I would agree with IBM's position that a "may terminate" with an ASC of
COMMAND SEQUENCE ERROR would be perfectly acceptable.
Curtis Ballard
Hewlett-Packard Company
+1 970 898 3013 / Tel
Curtis.Ballard at hp.com / Email
Fort Collins, CO
From: Bill Martin-SSI [mailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Kevin D Butt <kdbutt at us.ibm.com> (kdbutt at us.ibm.com); Gerry Houlder
(gerry.houlder at seagate.com); Ballard, Curtis C (HP Storage); T10 Reflector
Cc: Richard Deglin-SSI
Subject: Download microcode proposals
There were a number of comments on 14-121r1 and 14-150r0. This email attempts
to summarize the responses and is an attempt to gain consensus prior to the
next T10 meeting.
1)	On the changing the MODE field in subsequent downloads:
a.	 Seagate - declare an error if the MODE field changes from what was
sent in the first segment, with an ASC of INVALID FIELD IN CDB;
b.	HP - MODE field changes for the last download for a download sequence
and this MODE determines the activation method - no error generated for
changes in the MODE field between segments; and
c.	 IBM - would be acceptable with "may terminate" with an ASC of
COMMAND SEQUENCE ERROR;
2)	On the MODE SPECIFIC field in different segments:
a.	 Seagate - Capture the MODE SPECIFIC on the first download with MODE
0Dh and error if it changes;
b.	HP - did not address this issue; and
c.	 IBM - use the value in the last segment and ignore the value in
other segments with no error generated.
There are some significant differences in this list where one implementation
generates an error where another would have problems with an error being
generated. Is there some middle ground that would allow application clients
to know how a device server will respond?
Thanks for any input,
Bill Martin
SSD I/O Standards
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cell (408) 499-1839



More information about the T10 mailing list