[T10] ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) straw poll
ntw20 at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 16 20:21:17 PST 2015
I must agree that your presentation makes it much easier to follow the differences.
I should likely have renamed Control(7:0) to be Device Control(7:0) to disambiguate it..
>From: "John Geldman (jgeldman)" <jgeldman at micron.com>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2015 8:01 PM
>To: Neil Wanamaker <ntw20 at earthlink.net>, "t10 at t10.org" <t10 at t10.org>
>Cc: nathan seiler <Nathan.Seiler at InsightGlobal.net>, "terry.denney at hpe.com" <terry.denney at hpe.com>
>Subject: RE: [T10] ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) straw poll
>It may be late and I may be intellectually lazy tonight, but that is the most convoluted presentation of material that I've seen in a while. It takes more effort than I can muster this evening to visualize each two page table and mentally find the differences.
>The attached spreadsheet is an easier way to look. (Now I see the SCSI-friendly version has the fields in contiguous order, while the SATA-friendly version has the fields in all master/all slave order).
>The attached does also reveal that your 2nd and 3rd table have a Control (7:0) field that doesn't exist in the first table.
>While I fixed inconsistent names, explaining the 'odd' Control field is up to you (I think it is a duplicate of the SCSI field).
>From: t10-bounces at t10.org [mailto:t10-bounces at t10.org] On Behalf Of Neil Wanamaker
>Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:57 PM
>To: t10 at t10.org
>Cc: nathan seiler; terry.denney at hpe.com
>Subject: [T10] ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) straw poll
>At the recent T10 CAP meeting, Gerry Houlder presented 15-269r0, which included a new ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) command. In his proposal, he made the CDB structure consistent with the form of the ATA PASS-THROUGH(16), adding AUX and ICC at the end.
>In general, I applaud consistency, but... the ATA PASS-THROUGH(16) command seems to have few redeeming features - it is neither convenient for the SCSI initiator or for the SATL, what with the LBAs being scrambled, etc.
>To make the new command convenient for either the initiator or the SATL, I would like feedback on which of the three formats in the attachment would be preferable.
>The first is Gerry's proposal unchanged apart from using a service action of the form xx00, as the SPC editor suggests reserving a block of service actions (such as 3000h-37ffh)for SAT, as shown in Table E.8 of SPC-5.
>The second is a SCSI-friendly structure, putting LBA and AUX in big-endian form aligned to appropriate boundaries. I have added the CONTROL(7:0) field (which could be added to the first proposal, if people wanted to go that route.
>The third is a SAT (or ATA if you prefer) - friendly structure, which may be familiar to some of you.
>I would appreciate feedback from the audience as to which of these best meets your needs.
More information about the T10