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" <m...@redhat.com> 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that seems to belong to the other ballot that I have withdrawn.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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
