<div dir="ltr">Just my opinion, but I don't see anything that is "SCSI friendly" about the second choice.<div><ul><li>The LBA bytes don't land within bytes 14-19, where the lower 6 bytes of LBA are for 32 byte commands.<br></li><li>The Count field doesn't land in bytes 28-31, where the 4 byte transfer length is for 32 byte commands.<br></li><li>Most of the rest of the ATA fields don't have a SCSI equivalent.<br></li></ul></div><div>Any "SCSI friendly" arrangement would seem to be completely arbitrary and therefore not very helpful. This leads me to think that the third option (ATA friendly) makes the most sense.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Neil Wanamaker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ntw20@earthlink.net" target="_blank">ntw20@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">John,<br>
<br>
I must agree that your presentation makes it much easier to follow the differences.<br>
<br>
I should likely have renamed Control(7:0) to be Device Control(7:0) to disambiguate it..<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Neil<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: "John Geldman (jgeldman)" <<a href="mailto:jgeldman@micron.com">jgeldman@micron.com</a>><br>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2015 8:01 PM<br>
>To: Neil Wanamaker <<a href="mailto:ntw20@earthlink.net">ntw20@earthlink.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:t10@t10.org">t10@t10.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:t10@t10.org">t10@t10.org</a>><br>
>Cc: nathan seiler <Nathan.Seiler@InsightGlobal.net>, "<a href="mailto:terry.denney@hpe.com">terry.denney@hpe.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:terry.denney@hpe.com">terry.denney@hpe.com</a>><br>
>Subject: RE: [T10] ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) straw poll<br>
><br>
>Neil,<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>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).<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>While I fixed inconsistent names, explaining the 'odd' Control field is up to you (I think it is a duplicate of the SCSI field).<br>
><br>
>Grumpily yours,<br>
>John<br>
><br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <a href="mailto:t10-bounces@t10.org">t10-bounces@t10.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:t10-bounces@t10.org">t10-bounces@t10.org</a>] On Behalf Of Neil Wanamaker<br>
>Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:57 PM<br>
>To: <a href="mailto:t10@t10.org">t10@t10.org</a><br>
>Cc: nathan seiler; <a href="mailto:terry.denney@hpe.com">terry.denney@hpe.com</a><br>
>Subject: [T10] ATA PASS-THROUGH(32) straw poll<br>
><br>
>All:<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>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.<br>
><br>
>The third is a SAT (or ATA if you prefer) - friendly structure, which may be familiar to some of you.<br>
><br>
>I would appreciate feedback from the audience as to which of these best meets your needs.<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>Neil Wanamaker<br>
<br>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
T10 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:T10@t10.org">T10@t10.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.t10.org_mailman_listinfo_t10&d=CwICAg&c=IGDlg0lD0b-nebmJJ0Kp8A&r=TxI1DC4HavpWBdSmUqvdNvSwgOklhaW328zLt5AOpPM&m=kDiQzQG_DdEmmFm5EOXjyHs0hVuNkK_MWKoCQhfj7Kc&s=3zkQdT50a01kbTZT0dpwSSKBCg3GMS8_MO99TRN3Cn4&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.t10.org_mailman_listinfo_t10&d=CwICAg&c=IGDlg0lD0b-nebmJJ0Kp8A&r=TxI1DC4HavpWBdSmUqvdNvSwgOklhaW328zLt5AOpPM&m=kDiQzQG_DdEmmFm5EOXjyHs0hVuNkK_MWKoCQhfj7Kc&s=3zkQdT50a01kbTZT0dpwSSKBCg3GMS8_MO99TRN3Cn4&e=</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>