On 6/30/20 10:46 AM, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> On Jun 30 10:35, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Klaus,
>>
>> On 6/25/20 8:23 PM, Klaus Jensen wrote:
>>> On Jun 25 17:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Simplify the NVMe emulated device by aligning the I/O BAR to 4 KiB.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/block/nvme.h | 3 +++
>>>> hw/block/nvme.c | 5 ++---
>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/block/nvme.h b/include/block/nvme.h
>>>> index 1720ee1d51..6d87c9c146 100644
>>>> --- a/include/block/nvme.h
>>>> +++ b/include/block/nvme.h
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ typedef struct NvmeBar {
>>>> uint32_t pmrebs;
>>>> uint32_t pmrswtp;
>>>> uint32_t pmrmsc;
>>>> + uint32_t reserved[58];
>>>> + uint8_t cmd_set_specfic[0x100];
>>>> } NvmeBar;
>>>
>>> This ends up as a freak mix of v1.3 and v1.4 specs. Since we already
>>> have the PMR stuff in there, I think it makes more sense to align with
>>> v1.4 and remove the reserved bytes.
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't understand what you'd prefer, removing the
>> cmd_set_specfic[] for v1.3 and instead use this?
>>
>> uint32_t pmrmsc;
>> + uint32_t reserved[122];
>> } NvmeBar;
>>
>> Or this?
>>
>> uint32_t pmrmsc;
>> + uint8_t reserved[488];
>> } NvmeBar;
>>
>
> Yes, the second one.
>
> But it should be 484 bytes reserved and the bug is in the pmrmsc field
> that should be uint64_t. Can you fix that as well? :)
>
Ah this is what you did in "hw/block/nvme: add NVMe 1.4 specific fields"
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg717891.html
