SFF-8636 -- Common Management Interface

Ballard, Curtis C (StorageWorks) curtis.ballard at hp.com
Fri May 21 07:57:26 PDT 2010

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1005211_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I had the same question on point 1 and talked to one of the members working
on that specification.	The response I received was that with the multi-drop
interface it was possible for one device to completely lock up the bus and
prevent access by any other devices if that device didn't play nicely or had
a fault.  Having worked with I2C in the past and seen that behavior I can
appreciate that concern but it would be nice to have multi-drop capabilities
so devices with a lot of external ports don't have to have multiple
management interfaces or a MUX.
Curtis Ballard
Hewlett Packard
StorageWorks Platforms Tape
Fort Collins, CO
(970) 898-3013
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Amit M
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:29 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Cc: Shah, Amit M
Subject: SFF-8636 -- Common Management Interface
I had couple of question about the proposal "SFF-8636" related to Common
Management Interface.
1.	  This proposal talks about 2 wire management protocol which is sort
of similar to I2C. The Slave Addr is fixed at 50h. This means that the
interface cannot be used as a multi-drop interface and each cable will need
its own individual interface. So  the question is that why a multi-drop
interface was not considered for common management interface?
2.	 The Spec also talks Interrupt. Also SFF-8449 talks about IntL. Can
this Interrupt be shared across multiple interfaces?
Will appreciate your response.
Amit Shah

More information about the T10 mailing list