On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:02:54AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffma
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:18:07AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > So in my humble opinion the right thing for people to do is simply
> > > to
> > > avoid legacy devices. Is something preventing that?
> >
> > The same reasons why the concept of transitional devices exists at
> > all?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:02:54AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
> >> >
Hi,
> > So in my humble opinion the right thing for people to do is simply
> > to
> > avoid legacy devices. Is something preventing that?
>
> The same reasons why the concept of transitional devices exists at
> all?
We discussing future driver versions running on future qemu versions,
so we sh
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
>> >> >
>> >> > I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore
>>
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
> >> >
> >> > I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore
> >> > the subsystem ID (that's part of spec).
> >>
> >> I don't und
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 07:25:16AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:31:15PM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> >> The statement being removed doesn't change anything as virtio PCI devices
> >> already
> >> have Subsystem
On 03/11/17 19:23, Ladi Prosek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore
the subsystem ID (that's part of spec).
I don't understand this comment. I don't see anything in the spec
related
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
>> >
>> > I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore
>> > the subsystem ID (that's part of spec).
>>
>> I don't understand this comment. I don't see anything in the spec
>> related to ignoring
> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek
> >
> > I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore
> > the subsystem ID (that's part of spec).
>
> I don't understand this comment. I don't see anything in the spec
> related to ignoring the subsystem ID.
Well, the subsystem *device* id is defin
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:31:15PM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
>> The statement being removed doesn't change anything as virtio PCI devices
>> already
>> have Subsystem Vendor ID set to pci_default_sub_vendor_id (0x1af4), same as
>> Vendo
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:31:15PM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote:
> The statement being removed doesn't change anything as virtio PCI devices
> already
> have Subsystem Vendor ID set to pci_default_sub_vendor_id (0x1af4), same as
> Vendor
> ID. And the Virtio spec does not require the two to be equal,
The statement being removed doesn't change anything as virtio PCI devices
already
have Subsystem Vendor ID set to pci_default_sub_vendor_id (0x1af4), same as
Vendor
ID. And the Virtio spec does not require the two to be equal, either:
"The PCI Subsystem Vendor ID and the PCI Subsystem Device I
13 matches
Mail list logo
