Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] scsi: scsi_devinfo: extend BLIST_NO_LUN_1F to MATSHITA and NEC PD-1 variants
From: Hannes Reinecke
Date: Fri May 08 2026 - 02:09:04 EST
On 5/6/26 02:52, Phil Pemberton wrote:
On 27/04/2026 12:56, Hannes Reinecke wrote:So drop it, then.
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>
Only that these are optional to the feature work and untested as I don't have hardware. I believe these drives use the same PD-1 mechanism and firmware so should behave the same, but I can't prove it.
The intent was to allow the 1-6 set to be merged (as these are tested) without 7/7 (which is not) to minimise the risk of regressions.
We can always add it later once someone shows up who actually has the hardware.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich