Re: Why is USB different from ATAPI and FireWire?

• Subject: Re: Why is USB different from ATAPI and FireWire?
• From: Chris Sarcone <email@hidden>
• Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:01:21 -0800

Hello,

I recently sent this question to email@hidden, but apparently nobody who reads that list has any ideas why.

I wonder if someone on this list is willing to explain to me why IOUSBMassStorageClass directly instantiates an IOSCSILogicalUnitNub, rather than allowing the registry to match IOSCSIPeripheralDeviceNub, as the FireWire and ATAPI SCSI Protocol Service providers do?

Is there a reason for the difference?

In particular, this interferes with my driver that depends on beating IOSCSIPeripheralDeviceNub in the probe(). I've got a customer that would like to use my driver to inspect the SCSI CDB's that are causing his USB Mass target to behave strangely. Of course, a bus analyzer will eventually do the trick, but it is more expensive and less convenient.

If anyone here has a suggestion, I'd love to know. My guess is, there is no need for the difference in protocol service implementations, it's just an oversight. If anyone can verify that, I'd love to submit a patch along with my bug report.

The inconsistency interferes with my SCSI CDB snooper, see http://www.xmission.com/~knowlton/projects/PhotoCop.html

Curiously yours,
--
Tommy Knowlton
_______________________________________________
darwin-development mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-development
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why is USB different from ATAPI and FireWire?
    • From: Tommy Knowlton <email@hidden>

• Prev by Date: Re: Performance problem creating large files
• Next by Date: Re: Ptrace: step-by-step and breakpoints
• Previous by thread: Why is USB different from ATAPI and FireWire?
• Next by thread: Re: Why is USB different from ATAPI and FireWire?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread