On Fri, Feb 17 2023, Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote: > Device configuration fields are read only. Avoid duplicating this > description for multiple fields. > > Instead describe it one time and do it in the driver requirements > section. > > Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/161 > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> > --- > changelog: > v2->v3: > - split as new patch > --- > device-types/net/description.tex | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/device-types/net/description.tex > b/device-types/net/description.tex > index a197e1a..81e1135 100644 > --- a/device-types/net/description.tex > +++ b/device-types/net/description.tex > @@ -156,10 +156,10 @@ \subsubsection{Legacy Interface: Feature > bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Network > \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network > Device / Device configuration layout} > \label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / Feature bits / Device configuration > layout} > > -Device configuration fields are listed below, they are read-only for a > driver. The \field{mac} address field > +Device configuration fields are listed below. The \field{mac} address field
I would not remove this here, as I don't think we should move a simple statement into the conformance section (see below.) It does makes sense to remove the duplicate read-only annotations from the individual fields. > always exists (though is only valid if VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC is set), and > \field{status} only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS is set. Two > -read-only bits (for the driver) are currently defined for the status field: > +bits (for the driver) are currently defined for the status field: What does "bits (for the driver)" mean? It made sense together with "read-only", but I would drop "(for the driver)" as well. > VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP and VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE. > > \begin{lstlisting} > @@ -167,14 +167,14 @@ \subsection{Device configuration > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device > #define VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE 2 > \end{lstlisting} > > -The following driver-read-only field, \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} only > exists if > +The following field, \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} only exists if > VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ or VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS is set. This field specifies the maximum > number > of each of transmit and receive virtqueues (receiveq1\ldots receiveqN > and transmitq1\ldots transmitqN respectively) that can be configured once at > least one of these features > is negotiated. > > -The following driver-read-only field, \field{mtu} only exists if > -VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the driver > to > +The following field, \field{mtu} only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU > +is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the driver to > use. > > The following two fields, \field{speed} and \field{duplex}, only > @@ -261,6 +261,8 @@ \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device > Types / Network Device > > \drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration layout}{Device Types / > Network Device / Device configuration layout} > > +All the device configuration fields are read-only for the driver. Not sure if this makes a good normative clause, I would rather give the driver something actionable: "A driver SHOULD NOT try to write to any of the device configuration fields." > + > A driver SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC if the device offers it. > If the driver negotiates the VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC feature, the driver MUST set > the physical address of the NIC to \field{mac}. Otherwise, it SHOULD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org