On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 05:59:03AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:59:56AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 03:11:43 -0500
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote:
> >
> >
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >
> On 28.10.19 11:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >
> Vendors might want to add their own capability
> > > >
> in the PCI capability list. However, Virtio already
> > > >
> uses the vendor specific capability ID (0x09)
> > > >
> for its own purposes.
> > > >
> > >
> Did some vendor express that need, or do we only assume it so far? IOW: Do
> > >
> we know at least once concrete use case?
> > >
> >
> Good point, I should have added this in the log.
> > >
> >
> I know of a device that implements virtio and has a bug.
> > >
> >
> Device is a transitional one so can not have vendor specific
> >
> subsystem IDs (that violates the SHOULD below. Do we want to qualify
> >
> that this recommendation is for non-transitional devices?). While that
> >
>
> What about adding some notes on top that vendor specific subsystem IDs
>
> are not for transitional devices? That would also catch the case in the
>
> other update.
So how about I just skip the following chunk when I commit?
+The device SHOULD present the PCI subsystem vendor ID matching
+the device vendor, at offset 0x2C in its PCI configuration space
+header.
that seems to belong to the other ballot that I have withdrawn.
Minor enough that I don't feel we need to redo the whole ballot,
right?.
--
MST
