Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] scsi: scsi_devinfo: extend BLIST_NO_LUN_1F to MATSHITA and NEC PD-1 variants

[Phil Pemberton]

On 27/04/2026 12:56, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 4/26/26 21:09, Phil Pemberton wrote:
> > The Panasonic LF-1095/LF-1195 PD/CD combo drive was sold under three
> > OEM identities: COMPAQ "PD-1", MATSHITA "PD-1", and NEC "PD-1 ODX654P".
> > All three are the same drive mechanism with the same firmware family,
> > so they should share the BLIST_NO_LUN_1F quirk that was applied to the
> > COMPAQ variant: PDT 0x1f / PQ 0 INQUIRY responses on non-existent LUNs
> > are treated as "LUN not present" rather than as a phantom sdev.
> >
> > This patch is offered for completeness.  It has not been tested on the
> > MATSHITA or NEC variants -- the author only has access to the COMPAQ
> > unit -- but the drives are functionally identical and the flag is a
> > no-op on devices that do not exhibit the PDT 0x1f response.  Drop or
> > hold this patch if confirmation on real hardware is preferred before
> > extending the quirk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Pemberton <philpem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c | 6 ++++--
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
> > index bfc2cbd43897..ab1ffa9433b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_devinfo.c
> > @@ -201,7 +201,8 @@ static struct {
> >       {"LASOUND", "CDX7405", "3.10", BLIST_MAX5LUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> >       {"Marvell", "Console", NULL, BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES},
> >       {"Marvell", "91xx Config", "1.01", BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES},
> > -    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> > +    {"MATSHITA", "PD-1", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN |
> > +                   BLIST_NO_LUN_1F},
> >       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC5", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | 
> > BLIST_INQUIRY_36},
> >       {"MATSHITA", "DMC-LC40", NULL, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE | 
> > BLIST_INQUIRY_36},
> >       {"Medion", "Flash XL  MMC/SD", "2.6D", BLIST_FORCELUN},
> > @@ -212,7 +213,8 @@ static struct {
> >       {"nCipher", "Fastness Crypto", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN},
> >       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-4.8S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> >       {"NAKAMICH", "MJ-5.16S", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> > -    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> > +    {"NEC", "PD-1 ODX654P", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN |
> > +                      BLIST_NO_LUN_1F},
> >       {"NEC", "iStorage", NULL, BLIST_REPORTLUN2},
> >       {"NRC", "MBR-7", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
> >       {"NRC", "MBR-7.4", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN | BLIST_SINGLELUN},
>
> Any specific reason why this patch is not merged with the previous one?
> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes

Hi Hannes,

The short answer is because I don't have those two drives to test with. 
They're based on the same hardware platform but I'm assuming they have 
the same behaviour.

The idea of the separate patch is that if the lack of testing was an 
issue, it could be separated from the known-working parts in the first 6 
sections.

Thanks,
--
Phil.
philpem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.philpem.me.uk/