Re: SK hynix BC511: warning: nvme nvme0: missing or invalid SUBNQN field.

[Paul Menzel]

Dear Keith,


Am 17.08.21 um 19:02 schrieb Keith Busch:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:53:15PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > [cc: +Dell.Client.Kernel@xxxxxxxx as it’s a Dell device]
> > Am 17.08.21 um 18:16 schrieb Keith Busch:
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:10:40PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > > On a Dell OptiPlex 7780 AIO/04G47W (BIOS 1.6.3 03/08/2021) Linux 5.10.47
> > > > shows the warning below:
> > > >
> > > >       $ dmesg | grep nvme
> > > >       [    3.015392] nvme 0000:02:00.0: platform quirk: setting simple suspend
> > > >       [    3.021861] nvme nvme0: pci function 0000:02:00.0
> > > >       [    3.026593] ahci 0000:00:17.0: version 3.0
> > > >       [    3.026922] ahci 0000:00:17.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 1 ports 6 Gbps 0x1 impl SATA mode
> > > >       [    3.035020] ahci 0000:00:17.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf pm clo only pio slum part ems deso sadm sds apst
> > > >       [    3.035219] nvme nvme0: missing or invalid SUBNQN field.
> > > >       [    3.044518] scsi host0: ahci
> > > >       [    3.051632] nvme nvme0: 12/0/0 default/read/poll queues
> > > >       [    3.052590] ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 abar m2048@0xd1339000 port 0xd1339100 irq 125
> > > >       [    3.058538]  nvme0n1: p1 p2 p3
> > > >
> > > > Should it be added to the quirk list in `drivers/nvme/host/pci.c` or is it a
> > > > real issues, the manufacturer should fix? If so, do you have SK Hynix
> > > > contacts?
> > >
> > > It would be great if device makers would be spec compliant, but the
> > > driver will continue to work with the device the same whether you add
> > > the quirk or not.
> >
> > Could you please point me to the NVMe specification section, so I can refer
> > to it, when contacting the manufacturer?
>
> In the section for "Identify Controller Data Structure" (section
> 5.17.2.1, figure 257 in spec version 2.0), the NQN definition says:
>
>    "Support for this field is mandatory if the controller supports revision
>    1.2.1 or later"
>
> The driver does confirm the controller's reported revision meets this
> requirement before emitting the warning.

The Dell support came back to me, and said, that Hynix refuses to 
publish a fixed firmware unless I show them a use case, where I need 
that field.

Can somebody think of a use case, and why this field was made mandatory 
in the specification?


Kind regards,

Paul