Chuck McManis wrote:

> At 10:12 PM 3/10/00 -0500, Lord Isildur wrote:
> >no, DSSI disks should be treated liek any other MSCP disks, and use the
> >ra device names. DSSI disks can be thought of as a self contained unit
> >with its own HSC and a single disk attached to that HSC. thats why DEC
> >called them 'independent storage elements'. The DSSI protocol is actually
> >a subest of CI, as evidenced further by such things as the SHAC chip
> >being used for the DSSI stuff on some machines. SHAC is a single-chip CI
> >adapter. In any case the language spoken over this CI is MSCP.
> >
> >Isildur
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit here. The DSSI bus is a
> separate bus just as the SCSI bus is a separate bus. Consider for a moment
> that existing SCSI disks on the VS3100 series appear as "sd0 ... sdn" and
> "attach" to scsibus0, scsibus1, etc. MSCP disks on the other hand attach to
> the mscpbus and are labels ra0, ra1, etc. Now there are DSSI disks that
> connect to the MSCP bus using the KFQSA, but that is no different than SCSI
> disks that attach to the MSCP bus through a SCSI to MSCP adapter.

Well now, wait a second. I've got Q-Bus MSCP SCSI controllers, and those
devices are referred to as ra*. The only time SCSI disks are refered to as sd*
is when they aren't attached to an MSCP device - ie, the SCSI controller on a
VS3100. As long as these disks are being controlled by a Q-bus based MSCP
device, I agree that they should retain the ra* device name, since they'll be
using a derivation of the MSCP driver.

My $0.02.

--
 -J. Buck Caldwell