Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

BlueSCSI.ini parity option ignored #27

Closed
z80micro-mc opened this issue Apr 28, 2023 · 14 comments
Closed

BlueSCSI.ini parity option ignored #27

z80micro-mc opened this issue Apr 28, 2023 · 14 comments
Assignees
@erichelgeson
Labels
bug Something isn't working workaround Workaround avalbile

Comments

@z80micro-mc
Copy link

EnableParity option is totally ignored.

EnableParity = 0

or

EnableParity = 1

Both have the same effect. Parity checking is permanently enabled.

RM kit is an 8 bit SCSI controller whaich does not support parity. There Parity checking needs disabling.

WIKI for V2 is very sparse - no information on BLUESCSI.INI configuration options. Nor details on what the various System types do.

Peter
@erichelgeson
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like a bad merge renamed it to Parity - I'll fix it for next release, but should be a work around for the current release.

You can find some details in the examples bluescsi.ini in the repo or an interactive builder at https://ini.bluescsi.com

WIKI for V2 is very sparse - no information on BLUESCSI.INI configuration options. Nor details on what the various System types do.

It's a wiki so contributions welcome!

@erichelgeson erichelgeson added the bug Something isn't working label Apr 28, 2023
@erichelgeson erichelgeson self-assigned this Apr 28, 2023
@erichelgeson erichelgeson added the workaround Workaround avalbile label Apr 28, 2023
@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented Apr 28, 2023 via email

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented Apr 28, 2023 via email

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

There are 2 aspects to Parity:

Parity genration
Parity Checking.

These should be on separate flags or Parity shoud have a state setting: Off, generate but ignore, generate and check

Peter

@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly but does this host actually care if parity is generated?

Parity is usually referred in the target device domain as ignored or checked that I am familiar with anyways. So it would only need a toggle between 2 states.

When parity is disabled it is actually failing the transfers or is it just reporting them in the debugging log as acknowledging that parity is invalid? ie just noise?

If it's failing the transfers than that is definitely still a problem!

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented Apr 30, 2023 via email

@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

Alrighty, thanks for the clarification! So definitely still a bug and I can test it on a MegaSTE which is very dependent on parity being disabled.

I'll look into it and hopefully have a fix in place soon.

@mynameistroy mynameistroy reopened this Apr 30, 2023
@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

I have an experimental build for you to try if you don't mind. The error message is still printed in the log but the error is ignored as expected. I've test it on my MSTE which requires disabled parity to function.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUg6Oe0Ve-gWagrlIb5mWyBWLB1wHTXi/view?usp=share_link

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented May 1, 2023 via email

@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

I suspect the fix itself will be in shortly however I don't believe in removing the error from being displayed at this time. As it is a parity error, it's just being chosen to ignore it at the time.

@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

PR #30 Is now ready

Thanks again for finding and testing it out Peter.

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented May 2, 2023 via email

@z80micro-mc
Copy link
Author

z80micro-mc commented May 2, 2023 via email

@mynameistroy
Copy link
Contributor

re: the logging - Agreed, something like that would be more appropriate so in time I could see some changes around it in the future.

Glad it works and keep us posted on any further issues and hopefully they'll get resolved just as easily 😄

@z80micro-mc z80micro-mc mentioned this issue May 2, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@erichelgeson erichelgeson

Labels
bug Something isn't working workaround Workaround avalbile
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@erichelgeson @mynameistroy @z80micro-mc