On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 15:28:46 -0700 Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that all of use sites of label data have been converted to nsl_* > helpers, introduce the CXL label format. The ->cxl flag in > nvdimm_drvdata indicates the label format the device expects. A > follow-on patch allows a bus provider to select the label style. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]> A few trivial things inline. Nothing that actually 'needs' changing though. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> > index e6e77691dbec..71ffde56fac0 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/label.h > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/label.h > @@ -64,40 +64,77 @@ struct nd_namespace_index { > u8 free[]; > }; > > -/** > - * struct nd_namespace_label - namespace superblock > - * @uuid: UUID per RFC 4122 > - * @name: optional name (NULL-terminated) > - * @flags: see NSLABEL_FLAG_* > - * @nlabel: num labels to describe this ns > - * @position: labels position in set > - * @isetcookie: interleave set cookie > - * @lbasize: LBA size in bytes or 0 for pmem > - * @dpa: DPA of NVM range on this DIMM > - * @rawsize: size of namespace > - * @slot: slot of this label in label area > - * @unused: must be zero > - */ > struct nd_namespace_label { > + union { Cross reference might be a nice thing to include? Table 212 I think... > + struct nvdimm_cxl_label { > + uuid_t type; > + uuid_t uuid; > + u8 name[NSLABEL_NAME_LEN]; > + __le32 flags; > + __le16 nlabel; Perhaps call out nlabel is nrange in the spec? > + __le16 position; > + __le64 dpa; > + __le64 rawsize; > + __le32 slot; > + __le32 align; > + uuid_t region_uuid; > + uuid_t abstraction_uuid; > + __le16 lbasize; > + u8 reserved[0x56]; > + __le64 checksum; > + } cxl; > + /** > + * struct nvdimm_efi_label - namespace superblock > + * @uuid: UUID per RFC 4122 > + * @name: optional name (NULL-terminated) > + * @flags: see NSLABEL_FLAG_* > + * @nlabel: num labels to describe this ns > + * @position: labels position in set > + * @isetcookie: interleave set cookie > + * @lbasize: LBA size in bytes or 0 for pmem > + * @dpa: DPA of NVM range on this DIMM > + * @rawsize: size of namespace > + * @slot: slot of this label in label area > + * @unused: must be zero > + */ > + struct nvdimm_efi_label { > + uuid_t uuid; > + u8 name[NSLABEL_NAME_LEN]; > + __le32 flags; > + __le16 nlabel; > + __le16 position; > + __le64 isetcookie; > + __le64 lbasize; > + __le64 dpa; > + __le64 rawsize; > + __le32 slot; > + /* > + * Accessing fields past this point should be > + * gated by a efi_namespace_label_has() check. > + */ > + u8 align; > + u8 reserved[3]; > + guid_t type_guid; > + guid_t abstraction_guid; > + u8 reserved2[88]; > + __le64 checksum; > + } efi; > + }; > +}; > + > +struct cxl_region_label { Perhaps separate this out to another patch so the diff ends up less confusing? > + uuid_t type; > uuid_t uuid; > - u8 name[NSLABEL_NAME_LEN]; > __le32 flags; > __le16 nlabel; > __le16 position; > - __le64 isetcookie; > - __le64 lbasize; > __le64 dpa; > __le64 rawsize; > + __le64 hpa; > __le32 slot; > - /* > - * Accessing fields past this point should be gated by a > - * namespace_label_has() check. > - */ > - u8 align; > - u8 reserved[3]; > - guid_t type_guid; > - guid_t abstraction_guid; > - u8 reserved2[88]; > + __le32 ig; > + __le32 align; > + u8 reserved[0xac]; > __le64 checksum; > };
