Contradiction between MMC and Fuji on Inquiry command standard response
billmc37 at ctesc.net
Wed Apr 2 16:38:56 PDT 2008
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Bill McFerrin <billmc37 at ctesc.net>
I knew that I misunderstood something.
As Mike Berhan pointed out, both MMC-4 and MMC-5 require that the
Version field be 05h.
The Fuji version claims compliance with SPC and nothing higher. I do not
The Response Data Format is not consistent with any version of SPC, nor
is it consistent with Fuji. This will require some archive research to
discover the reasoning behind the difference.
David Burg wrote:
> Hi MMC and Fuji,
> Final MMC 5 says:
> *Table 320 INQUIRY Data for ATAPI and USB Drives*
> Response Data Format 0011b
> HiSup 0b
> NormACA 0b
> However, Mt Fuji 6 and 7 says:
> The ATAPI Transport Version field */shall /*contain 03h to comply with
> this version of the Specification. This field
> indicates the version of the ATAPI Transport that is being used. For
> more information on the transport, see the INCITS
> T13/1153D standard. For a SCSI logical unit this field is defined by
> the SCSI SPC-2 standard.
> A Response Data Format value of 02h indicates that the data */shall
> /*be in the format specified in this Specification.
> Response Data Format values less than two are obsolete. Response Data
> Format values greater than two are
> Note: A value of 3 for ATAPI Transport Version would match NormACA 1b
> and HiSup 1b. The response data format values contradict as well.
> Our Microsoft WLK test is currently verifying versus the MMC
> requirement above, thus the Fuji compliant devices get failed.
> Standard committees, which is the right specification here?
> Also, how does the host know if it should decode according to SCSI or
> according to ATAPI for the Fuji specification of inquiry response?
> With regards,
> David Burg.
* 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