SPI-4 rev. 9 table 85 incorrect

Katsumoto Onoyama k-onoya at str.hitachi.co.jp
Mon Feb 4 17:28:35 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Katsumoto Onoyama <k-onoya at str.hitachi.co.jp>
*
Hello All.

Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com wrote:
> 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.

I asked before as the followings last October in this mailing-list.

|     I have A question about mode parameters of page 0x18 (protocol 
|    specific LUN page) and 0x19 (protocol specific port page).
|
|     In SPC-2 (Rev20) or SPC-3 (Rev00), PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER is
|    described in BYTE 2 on both page 0x18 and 0x19. 
|
|       But in SPI-4, PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER is NOT described (BYTE 2 is
|    reserved) on page 0x18, and is described in BYTE 3 on page 0x19.
|
|       I think SPC is correct, and SPI has typo in description of
|    PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER bits.
|
|    Could someone teach me which is correct ?

So, Pinokie-san revised Table 85 in SPI-4 to maintain 
the compatibility for SPC.

Here is his answer at Nov. 1st in this mailing-list.
!Onoyama-san,
!You are correct. SPI-4 has the Protocol Identifier in the wrong byte. I
!will correct it in the next version of SPI-4 if there are no objections
!from anyone. So if anyone has a problem with this change best speak-up
!know.

Regards,
--------------
Katsumoto Onoyama
HITACHI Ltd., Data Storage Systems Division
*
* 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