Hi, I am going to add +Jahdiel Alvarez who is also looking into a similar issue, and also I would like to hear thoughts of people who may have worked with (embedded or otherwise) storage more recently than I have One thought that Jahdiel and myself were pondering is whether we need "type_a" and "type_b" fields at all, or if there should simply be a "wear estimate" field, which for eMMC, it could be max(typ_a, typ_b) but it could generalize to any number of cell or other algorithm, as long as it produces one unique estimate of wear Thanks, - Enrico Thanks, - Enrico On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 12:56 AM Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > While trying to upstream the implementation of VIRTIO_BLK_F_LIFETIME > feature, many developers suggested that this feature should be > extended to include more cell types, since its current implementation > in virtio spec is relevant for MMC and UFS devices only. > > The VIRTIO_BLK_F_LIFETIME defines the following fields: > > - pre_eol_info: the percentage of reserved blocks that are consumed. > - device_lifetime_est_typ_a: wear of SLC cells. > - device_lifetime_est_typ_b: wear of MLC cells. > > (https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.2/virtio-v1.2.html) > > Following Michael's suggestion, I'd like to add to the virtio spec > with a new, extended lifetime command. > Since I'm more familiar with embedded type storage devices, I'd like > to ask you guys what fields you think should be included in the > extended command. > > Thanks, > > Alvaro
